Dianne Khan – The Daily Bloghttps://thedailyblog.co.nz
Wed, 19 Dec 2018 02:08:26 +0000en-UShourly1Hungry minds v. hungry bellieshttps://thedailyblog.co.nz/2015/07/04/hungry-minds-v-hungry-bellies/
https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2015/07/04/hungry-minds-v-hungry-bellies/#commentsFri, 03 Jul 2015 22:38:01 +0000http://thedailyblog.co.nz/?p=60754When I relieve in schools, I pack a hearty lunch – two or three rounds of sandwiches, 4-8 biscuits, a pile of crackers, and fruit coming out of the wazoo. A fly on the wall might be forgiven for thinking this is a glutton at work – after all, I’m a woman of ample girth – but the fly would be wrong. I pack double or treble what I need because I know there will almost always be at least one student that needs to be fed in my class.

I could argue that it’s not my job to feed a child who has no lunch. I could rail at whoever sent the child to school without food. I could shake my fist at any number of things. But I don’t. I feed the kids.

Because no matter why they are standing in front of me hungry, there’s little to nothing theycan do about it.

The child didn’t ask for this. They didn’t make this happen, They are on the receiving end of all manner of issues about which they have no control and they are hungry.

So I feed the child.

So they can focus.

So they can learn.

It’s that simple, really.

Actually, it’s far from simple, even in my small world of that particular class on that particular day. Because the older the child is, the more likely they are to lie and say they do have food, even when they don’t. Older kids will affect some swagger and say they’re not hungry or that they’ve eaten their food earlier. They’re not daft – they know what it’s like to be judged, and they don’t like it. So they don’t take the risk – especially if they don’t know me.

Feed The Kids – A short animation by SOSNZ

And given the comments I hear and read from adults on this issue week by week, I can completely see why these kids choose to protect themselves from the possibility of this ever-present criticism: These kids may not yet know enough to be ‘at standard’ in maths or reading, but they sure as heck are ‘well above standard’ when it comes to self preservation.

Better, they think, to be hungry than shamed.

And this is not only happening in low decile schools. I’ve seen this with my own eyes in schools from decile 2 to decile 9. To frame it as a decile-related issue is to ignore the complexity of what’s at play. Even kids living in wealthier areas come to school hungry or arrive with inadequate or invisible lunches.

So what’s being done about this?

Today’s Herald reports that when the Feed The Kids Bills came before parliament this year, Hekia Parata called three schools to get a feel for the situation. Three schools. What did she ask? How were her questions framed? Did she really think three calls would tell her all she needs to know about such a vast and complicated issue?

It speaks volumes about how seriously the issue is treated by the Minister (and perhaps explains why she applauds low-quality reports such as come out of the NZ Initiative) when she thinks three calls comprises high quality research.

“The ongoing costs of poverty, at 4 percent of GDP per annum, are simply too high for us to fail to address the underlying causes.

When we choose to invest more in young and disadvantaged children, we will position New Zealand better to meet the challenges of labour market demands, ageing demographics, and the drive for economic productivity so we can maintain our standard of living.

Strategic investment in children will benefit all New Zealanders.”

For the children, for the economy and for all of us, it is wiser to work on prevention: The ambulance at the bottom of the cliff is never an effective policy.

Please, feed the kids.

]]>https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2015/07/04/hungry-minds-v-hungry-bellies/feed/30The TPPA and our public education systemhttps://thedailyblog.co.nz/2015/05/24/whos-got-their-beady-eyes-on-our-education-system/
https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2015/05/24/whos-got-their-beady-eyes-on-our-education-system/#commentsSat, 23 May 2015 19:07:09 +0000http://thedailyblog.co.nz/?p=59274For a moment there as the budget was announced, I was relieved, at least with regards to charter schools. Only two for next year – perhaps the government are seeing the folly in it all, I thought. Perhaps they see that even the decent ones are not doing anything innovative or different and in fact are being outshone by the best of our state schools? Perhaps they see there’s no room for schools that for whatever reason don’t embrace students with high special educational needs. Perhaps they realise the cost involved is insanely expensive and the money would be better spent in public schools?

Yes, for a moment there I really thought they may be getting the idea …

Then a horrible thought crossed my mind.

Education and the TPPA

What if the reason they are budgeting for only two more charter schools in 2016/17 is because the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) Investor-State Dispute Settlements (ISDS) and Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA) will make it all a moot point?

Tim Groser admitted in the House this week that there will be no TPPA without ISDS. What that means in layman’s terms is that once the TPPA and ISDS are signed overseas corporations will be able to push for changes to our laws. And if NZ refuses to do as a corporation demands, the business can sue NZ on the grounds that we are preventing them from making the maximum profit possible.

That’s right, companies with billions at their fingertips will be able to sue NZ.

And as Professor Jane Kelsey has pointed out, “[o]ften the foreign firms just threaten to bring these cases to harass governments and ‘chill’ them into backing off new measures the investors don’t like.”

What does all of this mean for New Zealand education?

Well, consider the huge influence billionaires such as Bill Gates and the Walton family (owners of Walmart) have had on US education:

The Waltons have funded and promoted charter schools and school voucher systems to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, with family members involved in many pro-charter organisations. They are determined and they are wealthy.

And what about Bill Gates, who has poured millions into charter schools, teacher performance pay, high-stakes testing and the US Common Core curriculum? Has it helped? Quite the contrary – these measures have proven to be hugely problematic. Yet, thanks to his millions, Bill Gates’ influence in US education is gargantuan.

In short, these rich meddlers are buying up education in the USA.

And once the TPPA is signed, they and others will be able to do the same in Aotearoa and we would have little chance to stop it.

No Mandate in NZ

Neither the Waltons, Bill Gates, Pearson Publishing, Mike Feinberg nor any of the other parties that might have their eye on NZ education have been elected to represent us. They aren’t NZ MPs, they have no vote here, and they don’t even have children at school here – but none of that will matter once the TPPA is signed.

At that point, big business has the power.

Diane Ravitch, education historian and former US Assistant Secretary of Education puts it best when she says:

“There is something fundamentally antidemocratic about relinquishing control of the public education policy agenda to private foundations run by society’s wealthiest people.”

The TPPA does just that.

Just two more charter schools? Not if TPPA is signed – not a hope. And that’ll be the least of our worries.

]]>https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2015/05/24/whos-got-their-beady-eyes-on-our-education-system/feed/32The Beehive Charter Schoolhttps://thedailyblog.co.nz/2015/04/26/the-beehive-charter-school/
https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2015/04/26/the-beehive-charter-school/#commentsSat, 25 Apr 2015 19:55:18 +0000http://thedailyblog.co.nz/?p=58305Charter schools are all the rage in government circles, so why not open one modelled on the New Zealand government itself? We would take the systems and behaviour of the Beehive and share it with the next generation, because what happens in the Beehive must be the pinnacle of expectations and something we should all aspire to.

We would advertise for students using promises such as having free school nurses, and then renege on those policies once students are enrolled, citing budgetary reasons.

We would have a daily meeting with all staff and students where questions can be asked. There is no obligation on anyone to answer sensibly or truthfully or in full unless caught out. These sessions would always be chaired by someone who agrees not to ask their favourite group to answer properly.

Any larger issues brought up would be dealt with by in internal select committee that already has made a decision and would therefore sit quietly and let the poor submitters ramble so they at least might feel they were heard.

Management would receive a handsome annual pay rise. Cleaners and support staff will get under 1% per year due to budget restrictions.

We would have a luxury restaurant for staff, paid for out of the school budget. Under no circumstances will this budget be used to feed students.

Given staff and restaurant costs, we might choose to sell off most of our buildings in the hope that our budget might get into surplus.

We would leave it to the market to solve the issue of where to house the children for lessons. If there are no classrooms left after the sell-off, we would berate the classroomless students for their laziness and lack of self control in getting themselves into that position.

Management will reserve the right to fly themselves and their partners to events first class at the cost of the school during the term of their employment and forever thereafter.

Our behaviour policy would be:

people can lie.

anyone caught out lying can either lie again or laugh off the original lie as not important or accuse the person that caught them out of a smear campaign.

bullying would be allowed, and in fact we will have staff and a PR firm that helps do it carefully so that no-one gets in trouble for it.

we will have a dedicated “office” to blame should anything get out of hand

if people wish to bully anonymously, we would have bloggers that will spread the rumours for them. There will sometimes a fee for this service.

harassment would be allowed so long as the harasser gives the person they harassed two bottles of fizz when they finally scream at them to STOP (but not before).

We would spend millions on a new school flag even though the school already has a flag and nobody wants a new one.

Finally, we would sign a document allowing other, bigger schools to sue us if we ever do anything that might infringe on their right to earn money. Signing this document would be done on the condition that those of us people signing are be given lucrative jobs by one of the bigger schools or their friends once we leave our current positions.

Any questions could be submitted in writing, where we would have along list of ready excuses not to provide a response in a timely manner.

Any complaints could be directed to the Ombudsman, who would explain that we don’t have to tell you anything or explain ourselves in any way.

I wish people would stop punishing children for the perceived sins of the parents.

I wish National Library would reconsider its curated resources plans.

I wish all schools had a paid co-ordinator to co-ordinate community-based projects.

I wish that all schools had adequate funds to attend to all of their children’s educational needs.

I wish the focus on shonky National Standards would stop.

I wish teachers didn’t have to work so many hours over their paid hours just to stay afloat.

I wish people took more seriously the link between socio-economic status and educational achievement.

I wish there was a decile review taking place, to find a better system for funding schools.

I wish Christchurch school communities were given a fair hearing.

I wish people would look beyond politics and ideology and think critically about education policies.

You can keep the cake, keep the presents, and even the cards – let’s just be serious about helping all children achieve their potential.

]]>https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2015/03/28/a-little-education-wish-list/feed/2Wilful ignorance is not bliss for hungry kidshttps://thedailyblog.co.nz/2015/03/14/wilful-ignorance-is-not-bliss-for-hungry-kids/
https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2015/03/14/wilful-ignorance-is-not-bliss-for-hungry-kids/#commentsFri, 13 Mar 2015 18:21:01 +0000http://thedailyblog.co.nz/?p=56716Late last year the Prime Minister said during Parliamentary Question Time that principals have told him that only one or two kids per school are hungry. He’s said as much again this week. Teachers everywhere cocked their heads, knitted their eyebrows and muttered, “What the…”

“Sounds like a Tui ad…no hungry kids..yeah right.” said one teacher.

“It’s all very “let them eat cake,” said another observer.”

It transpires that John Key mostly visits very high decile schools, throwing only the occasional visitational crumb at the lowest decile schools. And of course if you only speak to principals of schools with students from our better paid families, it’s safe to say you’d not hear a great deal about kids with empty lunch boxes.

I also spoke to a teacher who noted that in her decile 2 school the rest of the kids must be well fed because the “one or two” without a decent lunch were in her class. The freezer full of basics bread and jam sandwiches, the fruit and veg given by charity, the milk they get daily, all that must be just for her two kids.

You’d have to be wilfully ignorant or just plain stupid not to accept what teachers are telling us – that the poorer the families of students in a school, the higher the incidence of poverty related issues, such as hunger and poor health.

John Key worries that a system that provides children with a decent lunch absolves parents of the obligation to feed their children. Hey, John, it might indeed absolve some – but you know what, I really don’t give a monkey’s. No matter what leads to students having empty or inadequate lunch boxes, the kids themselves are not at fault. The kids need food. They deserve food. They have a right to the best chance to succeed.

Perhaps, rather than all of this denial, the government could stop throwing cash at charter schools and look at the root of the issues faced by our poorest students instead. Or is dealing with these issues head on too much for them?

Perhaps they’d prefer to keep hiding behind ideology and cocky jokes? After all, there’s none so blind as those that will not see.

]]>https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2015/03/14/wilful-ignorance-is-not-bliss-for-hungry-kids/feed/75Charter Schools: When no news is not good newshttps://thedailyblog.co.nz/2015/02/22/charter-schools-when-no-news-is-not-good-news/
https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2015/02/22/charter-schools-when-no-news-is-not-good-news/#commentsSat, 21 Feb 2015 23:09:58 +0000http://thedailyblog.co.nz/?p=56077It’s been six months since I first asked Why has it all gone quiet on Charter Schools? In that article, I posed some questions for those pushing the charter school agenda, hoping to open a dialogue with some of its fiercest proponents. What I got was nigh on radio silence, so now I want to revisit those questions and see how much we have learned since they were posed…

Question: Dis all five 2014 charter schools have at least the minimum number of students they must have according to their contracts?

Answer: No, they did not. Some were wavering around the guaranteed minimum for which they were paid, but most were below. Remember, charter schools are paid for their guaranteed minimum number of pupils, whether they enrol that many or not (unlike state schools, which are paid per student head, revised throughout the year).

It’s also intriguing to note that a November OIA request regarding minimum rolls was delayed… does Ministry not have this information immediately to hand?

Question: How many students has each charter school lost over the 2014 school year?

Answer: We now know that the Northland charter school’s roll dropped significantly during the year and was never anywhere near the guaranteed minimum.

Vanguard’s roll also dropped notably: Roll returns obtained from the Ministry of Education’s School Directory database indicate actual student 2014 roll numbers as follows: 104 as at 1 March; 93 as at 1 July and 79 in October.

Only 2 schools passed their guaranteed minimum, and one of those, South Auckland Middle School, still lost students. Source

Question: Have any of the current schools had ERO there to do readiness reviews, yet, and if so, what did ERO say?

Answer: Well, we now know the silence on this one was because Whangaruru (now named Te Pumanawa O Te Wairua in a rather embarrassing attempt to rebrand) was in such a dire situation. But there was only so long this could be kept under wraps, and the school is now subject to an order to improve.

Question: Are the initial problems at Whangaruru resolved now?

Answer: Not even close.

Question: Do the schools lose per-pupil funding if a student leaves, like state schools do?

Answer: No. They just keep on getting paid to their guaranteed minimum roll, even if they are not meeting that minimum. So much for the free market model ACT is so keen to promote.

Question: How many ORS funded students (students with significant special educational needs) do the charters cater for?

Answer: Again, no wonder there was a loud silence on this one, since the answer is none. Not a single one.

And if one current charter school head is running a private school that apparently let down an autistic student, then who knows what’s going on.

Question: Whatever happened to Catherine Isaac’s working group – where’s the report they surely did after all of their unbiased research?

Answer: Still waiting, waiting, waiting….

Meanwhile charter schools in Chile are being taken back within the state system after failing students for decades, and the latest exam results from England show their version of charter schools (Academies) have performed below state schools. And don’t even get me started on the farces playing out in the USA…

Question: Given charters are so costly compared with other forms of education in New Zealand, are they providing good value for our tax money?

Answer:

Question: Why has it gone quiet on the new charter schools due to start next year?

We eventually heard that four more schools were to open. Alwyn Poole managed to snag another one, which opened in the middle of an unfortunate saga not of their making and then faced another embarrassing blow shortly after.

The good news is that there will not be another round of charter schools this year, so for now at least there is a pause and, perhaps, time to evaluate just how the ones already open are doing.

Question: How does having charter schools starting at preschool age (as indicated by the Minister may happen) help with the mythical 20%?

Answer: Pffft, why let little things like contradictions, evidence and research stand in the way of a good privatisation opportunity?!

Question: Jamie Whyte said charter schools are the answer to issues of bullying that LGBTI students face – how?

Answer: Jamie has left the building. David Seymour did attend the Big Gay Out 2015, but that’s as far as this one’s gone.

Question: Leading Maori educationalists signed an open letter to government opposing charter schools; have their concerns been dealt with?

Answer: Good question… it seems not.

Question: Given charters were set up to help with the mythical “1 in 5″ who do not get NCEA 2, is there any evidence that this group’s achievement is rising?

Answer: Vanguard Military School has posted what seem to be good NCEA results, however there are some unanswered questions around them. For example, how did those students who dropped out over the course of the year do? Are the released results for allthat ever enrolled or only for those who stayed? (It’s a very important difference, as charter schools have been well documented for easing out those students they felt might bring their pass marks down, and such behaviour is not in the interests of students.) And as Literacy and Numeracy were rightly a focus according the Hekia Parata, what subjects were Vanguard’s students passes in? Were they related to literacy and numeracy or not?

Question: Charter schools have not improved educational success in USA, England or Sweden, and in fact all have dropped significantly in PISA tables. So what has been put in place to ensure the same does not happen in New Zealand?

Answer: We are yet to hear what is in place regarding this.

Meanwhile, charter school results in England just took another blow, and Chilean students have forced the government to overturn charter schools and bring them back within the state system due to them leading to a two-tier system that promoted cherry-picking of students, exclusion of special needs or other high needs students, and underfunding of state schools.

So where are we now?

It seems that since last October we have had more bad news on charter schools than good.

They say no news is good news, but experience tells us that in the weird world of education reformers, silence is more indicative of a cover up than of good news.

]]>https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2015/02/22/charter-schools-when-no-news-is-not-good-news/feed/4NZ’s broken special educational needs support systemshttps://thedailyblog.co.nz/2015/02/07/nzs-broken-special-educational-needs-support-systems/
https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2015/02/07/nzs-broken-special-educational-needs-support-systems/#commentsFri, 06 Feb 2015 20:48:30 +0000http://thedailyblog.co.nz/?p=55681I’ve been thinking a lot this week about teachers and nurses. This is what got me thinking…

In schools, teachers deal with everyone – those that are straightforward to teach and those that are not – much like nurses. If someone was admitted to hospital with, say, a broken hip, and was found to have cardiac problems or cancer or ebola, the nurses would not be expected to deal with that on the same ward with the same staff and nothing more. A specialist would be called in.

Now, if you get a student in class who turns out to have dyslexia or dyscalculia or emotional problems or behavioural problems or autism or any one of myriad other things, you’d best keep your finger crossed. And if you are that child’s parents, prepare yourself for an all out battle.

Because the number of specialists in our education system is getting lower by the year.

The things that were previously in place have been cut, Resource Teachers: Learning and Behaviour (RTLBs) are run off their feet, schools have limited funds for staff training, getting a Teacher Aide requires an incredibly high level of need, and you’re bang out of luck if you need a child psychologist unless you can cough up your own $120+ per hour.

The Ministry of Education says: “Students with learning and behaviour needs may receive support from physiotherapists, occupational therapists, and speech and language therapists from the Ministry of Education, Special Education (SE), or school specialist service providers (SSPs).” I love the cunning use of the word “may”. It’s a bit like those adverts that declare you can get “up to 60% off”. Yeah, that clever phrase “up to” that means you may get nothing at all. That’s what “may receive” specialist help from the Ministry means. In truth it is hard to access such help.

I know parents at the end of their tether fighting what seems to be a very unhelpful system. They want the best for their children but hit wall after wall. They are often very sympathetic of classroom teachers who are also wanting help but not being heard. Imagine having a child that has no arms but may or may not get a teacher aide or any other specialist help. Imagine being told to brace yourself as you apply for funding to support your brain damaged child when he starts school. Imagine a two-year fight to convince the powers that be that your child is severely autistic, only to get the highest level of funding after that fight. Two years later than the child needed. Two years of stress for the parents.

How could nurses do their job if there were no specialists available? What if they had to try to treat everything from broken legs to brain tumours with no specialist training, equipment or staff?

Better still, what if any specialist equipment needed, had to be bought by either the parents or the teacher or it just doesn’t happen. Imagine the uproar. So why is this happening to our children?

To best educate allof our students, we have to have full and proper support in place for those in need of specialist help.

John Key cockily asserts that he’s canvassed principals and only one or two kids per school, at most, are coming to school hungry. Of course, Key doesn’t name these principals or their schools. As Peter O’Connor commented, “I guess it gives new meaning to evidence based decision making when a chat with a few principals can be construed as evidence”

As is often the case with Key, facts are flexible, evidence short in supply, and the answer he gives to a serious and important question is given as if he is on 7 Days, playing for shits and giggles.

“…at our school we feed between 50 and 70 kids everyday for breakfast, go through about 250 lunches a week. Yes we have fruit in schools and milk in schools as well. We are so grateful for KidsCanNZ‘s support. We have never let a child go hungry and nor would we.

I have come to the conclusion that the odd 1 or 2 in decile 1 schools are all at ours.

Thanks Mr Key for sorting that out.

Even where students were fed, there were still concerns raised, with many commenting on the quality of many of the lunches that do arrive at school:

We are a small decile 2 school and all our children have lunch. There is a problem though with the nutritional value of the lunch for a number of children.

Another noted:

Technically, a can of Sprite and a packet of chips is “lunch”. Just not a healthy lunch.

I’ve witnessed this, myself, in the schools I have worked in in New Zealand, despite them being high decile schools. The child who arrived every day with a packet noodle and nothing else. The child who arrived with a sandwich and nothing else. The children whose lunch box contained just chippies, fruit strings, a few crackers, but nothing of substance.

Sure, they had lunch. But what kind of lunch is that?

This dismayed teacher wanted their observations shared anonymously:

In our decile 1a school I have observed the following this term: 1. Two children have been absent from my class because there was no food for lunches.2. Today a boy took 11 of the milk cartons from our school milk and put them in his bag. He loves milk and they don’t have it at home…3. Our local church brings sandwiches every week which are frozen and we defrost or toast them for approx 5 students a day. 4. We provide breakfast, fruit and milk also. Something I have noticed … students on camp who completely transform in their behaviour because, I believe, we feed them so well – I truly believe these kids had never been “full”5. It is not uncommon to see a children, including 5 year olds, with a large bag of chips for their lunch and play.6. We have a group of about 7 kids who have noodles almost everyday for lunch.

So, we’ve heard from the teachers, but what about some good hard statistics?

The New Zealand School Trustees Association (NZSTA) last year conducted research into food in schools programmes. 458 schools responded, evenly spread between the deciles.

Asked to what degree they agreed with the statement “Students don’t come to this school hungry,” these were the results, broken down by decile:

I wonder if Mr Key’s principals were in there?

If they were, then those principals and Mr Key might want to ponder the fact that, in these responses, staff were more likely than principals to say students were coming to school hungry.

He might also want to talk to principals such as Rhys McKinley, who found Key’s claim “laughable”, saying:

The Porirua East area is full of decile one and two schools. The principals often talk about health matters at cluster meetings, and food in bellies is a major issue. We’re not talking about one or two kids

The NZSTA report concludes:

Perhaps the Prime Minister might want to speak to those at the coal face, for a more detailed picture regarding the need to feed the kids?

]]>https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/11/08/mr-keys-mythical-principals/feed/11It’s time to celebrate Kiwi schools and teachershttps://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/10/26/its-time-to-celebrate-kiwi-schools-and-teachers/
https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/10/26/its-time-to-celebrate-kiwi-schools-and-teachers/#commentsSat, 25 Oct 2014 18:49:05 +0000http://thedailyblog.co.nz/?p=53666Some would have you believe that New Zealand’s schools are in a state of collapse, that your children are not being educated well and that things are going to hell in a hand basket. That there is no innovation, no forward thinking going on. But that simply is not true. Quite the opposite, in fact.

New Zealand state schools are a hotbed of innovation and excitement

Avondale College in Auckland has a superb Innovation programme and this year a class of 28 had created apps with potential commercial applications, such that the school is looking at how to protect the students’ intellectual property rights. This is a state school.

Or what about the amazing Common Unity Project at Epuni School, Lower Hutt, where they have a pilot scheme that is a model of community sharing and resilience. So far they have gardens, community cooking, sewing, baking, bread making, knitting, an awesome garden, a bike shop, woodwork projects and more. The goal is to produce enough food to feed the entire school community this year. All done with the students, integrated into the curriculum and achieved on a shoe-string.

Then there are the more hands on programmes, like the one run by Te Taitokerau Trades Academy in Northland that helps students in many schools learn a trade and work towards a National Trade Certificate and their NCEA accreditation.

There are children as young as 5 years old enjoying accelerated science groups, winning movie making, hands-on conservation, Make and Take and garden-to-table food programmes, maths magic, and all manner of great programmes.

All in state schools.

And then there’s the teachers themselves.

There are winning teachers like Melanie Wihongi-Popham, Josie Fitzgibbon, Helen Toplis, Fiona Smith, Ramona Barbara, Sara Sabin, Hayley Anderson, Patricia Pietersen, Benjamin Himme, and Brenda Meyer as well as dynamos such as Peter Stewart, all of whom are an inspiration.

Then there are those gems working in their own time to become even better at what they do, like the Connected Educators and those taking part in #edchatnz, sharing knowledge and best practice with each other, always looking to reflect on and improve their pedagogy. Marvellous! Go find them on Twitter or Facebook every evening – they are there in droves, on #edchatnz #edubookchatNZ #shiftingthinking and more.

Wonderful things are all being done in state schools every single day by dedicated and caring teachers who know their stuff.

And on the world stage?

Our 15 year olds show that we fare well, and despite a slight slip 2009-2012, New Zealand’s average achievement in mathematics, science and reading is still above the OECD average.

Meanwhile, the USA has gone backwards at a rate of knots and is now stagnant, as is the UK, both of whom are further than we are into education reforms that were meant to improve things. That was the promise – reforms would make things better and improve results. That was the reason given for bringing in performance pay, charter schools, standardised testing, unqualified teachers, and so on. And yet it has not improved results for either country.

What is very interesting is that the PISA summary paper outlines that New Zealand’s top students do incredibly well, but that there is a huge disparity between top and bottom. The OECD points to socio-economic factors holding back students in New Zealand, the USA and the UK, too.

This isn’t news to any teacher or to politicians, and everyone agrees it needs to be addressed. Howwe address is it a point of huge disagreement, however.

Should we address poverty’s impact on education by undermining the public education system and simultaneously building a competing privatised charter school system? National and ACT say yes – just about everyone else says no.

The global education reform movement (GERM) hasn’t worked for the USA or the UK, and no-one has yet explained at all why it would work here in NZ.

Our public education system has so much going for it. It would surely be a better move to ditch blind ideology and undertake quality research into what is working in state schools already and why, have cross-sector and cross-party talks, and really get to the bottom of how we can get the good practice currently happening into more and more schools.

And while the experts do that, maybe instead of brow-beating teachers and trying to eke a profit out of education, the reformers could put their energies to improving equality and see what effect that has? Just a thought.

]]>https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/10/26/its-time-to-celebrate-kiwi-schools-and-teachers/feed/4The Charter Schools Soap Operahttps://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/10/12/the-charter-schools-soap-opera/
https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/10/12/the-charter-schools-soap-opera/#commentsSat, 11 Oct 2014 18:12:42 +0000http://thedailyblog.co.nz/?p=53303So, young ACT Party rookie MP, David Seymour, is now the Parliamentary Undersecretary responsible for the further development of charter schools.

How can the government justify spending additional taxpayer funding on such a position when the existing five charter schools enrol a total of only 358 students? How will Mr Seymour fill his time – visit each school every week, with a day a week devoted to each one? The news that four more schools are to open next year might see Mr Seymour’s workload nearly double, with only fortnightly visits possible!

Or is it now abundantly clear that the original 2011 Agreement to “pilot” a new system was just another meaningless offering from the political spin doctors?

The latest National/ACT Confidence and Supply Agreement hints at problems that we know already exist.

The Agreement states that National and ACT have

“…agreed to further develop the model and expand the trial of Partnership Schools/Kura Hourua…”

There is a desire to see

“…strengthening and enhancing the application and governance processes in order to foster high quality applications and high-performing schools.”

Is this a coded slap in the face for both Seymour and former ACT Party President, Catherine Isaac?

Seymour, we are now told, was apparently the “policy wonk” behind the development of the NZ charter school model and the supporting legislation.

So that may be why the original NZ Model of Charter School Working Group, chaired by Isaac, did not produce any written reports, recommendations or advice to its sponsoring Ministers, even though its Terms of Reference required it to do so. (1)

Any written reports would surely have required the Working Group to have documented what it found and to set out the evidential base behind the proposed model.

Is that why there is also confusion about the real policy objective behind the charter school initiative?

On National Radio recently, Catherine Isaac stated quite clearly that charter schools were about “Alternative Education”.

But in parliament, under questioning, Hekia Parata has stated that the purpose of charter schools is to provide “Choice”, as is the American mantra.

And Jamie Whyte, philosopher and former ACT Party Leader, delights in the dream that every school in New Zealand could one day be a charter school.

So, who’s right?

After the Working Group concluded its “work”, Isaac was then appointed to chair its replacement, the Partnership Schools Kura Hourua Authorisation Board. The primary purpose of this body was supposedly to screen the charter school applications and make recommendations to the Minister.

So why are they now keen to “foster high quality applications”? What does that reveal about the quality of the applications seen to date? Is this a coded response to the problems seen already in at least one of the first five schools?

And why was there not greater public debate about the creation of the four new schools, as called for by the Ombudsman, in a report released in July 2013.

The Ombudsman stated:

“I do not accept the Ministry’s position that later disclosure of the [application] information at issue will satisfy the public interest.

Disclosure after the Minister has taken decisions on the applications may serve the public interest in accountability, but it would not satisfy the public interest in the public being informed, and being able to participate in the debate, about the creation of partnership schools prior to those decisions being taken.

The partnership schools policy involves substantial public funds and significant changes to the way in which publicly funded education provision is controlled, managed and delivered. I consider a more informed public discourse about the creation of such schools is in the public interest.” (2)

The Ombudsman’s observation that there is “substantial public funds” involved is clearly borne out by the detailed funding provided to each school.

So, why have we seen no change at all in the lack of public involvement in the authorisation process?

Monitoring the schools is also supposed to be the function of the Authorisation Board. But recently, in the same radio interview, Catherine Isaac had no idea what had happened at the first five schools. This included not knowing that three schools were still below the “guaranteed minimum roll” at which they are funded for 2014, regardless of how many students are actually enrolled at the schools. And, furthermore, two schools had experienced falling rolls.

And all this “monitoring” is supposedly on top of the normal monitoring carried out by the Ministry of Education and other education agencies, such as the Education Review Office.

So, what on Earth are all these people actually doing to earn their taxpayer funded remuneration?

Since its inception in the mid-1990s, the ACT Party has supported the privatisation of New Zealand schools. Sir Roger Douglas’s viewing of the charter school glorification film, “Waiting for Superman” probably formed the basis of the ACT agreement with National to trial charter schools in New Zealand.

Douglas wrote a blog on the ACT Party website in March 2011 waxing lyrical about the film. However, “Waiting for Superman” portrays an idealistic view of the “reform” agenda in American education. Public schools are slated as failing poor children, teachers are portrayed as incompetent, unions are motivated to act only to protect their members’ interests, and parents are desperate to escape from being locked into badly under-resourced and decaying neighbourhood schools.

If only they had “Choice” like the rich people have, goes the mantra, then all their problems would be solved…

Buzzwords and clichés go a long way in politics, so, in the blink of an eye, charter schools were promoted here as the solution to “…the educational underachievement of children in poor communities.”

But hang on a minute. If they are the solution to “…educational underachievement” then why do ACT and Mr Seymour now want to convert every school in New Zealand into a charter school?

Confused? Don’t worry. The charter school soap opera has hardly just begun.

Welcome to another three years of complete nonsense – fully funded by the NZ taxpayer of course.

– by Bill Courtney, SOSNZ

(1) Source: OIA letter form the Ministry of Education, dated 8 August 2013

(2) Source: Ombudsman Report, dated July 2013.

]]>https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/10/12/the-charter-schools-soap-opera/feed/1A dictionary of education terms and definitions, brought to you by the letters R E F O R and Mhttps://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/09/27/a-dictionary-of-education-terms-and-definitions-brought-to-you-by-the-letters-r-e-f-o-r-and-m/
https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/09/27/a-dictionary-of-education-terms-and-definitions-brought-to-you-by-the-letters-r-e-f-o-r-and-m/#commentsFri, 26 Sep 2014 18:46:55 +0000http://thedailyblog.co.nz/?p=52895Free to all TDB readers, please enjoy your very own cut-out-and-keep handy primer of terms that I predict you will need to know over the next three years…

Achievement Gap(noun)

Synonym for wealth gap.

ACT (abstract noun)

Intangible. Reported to exist in one remote part of Auckland. Largely a figment of the imagination, with only 0.7% of people polled believing they exist, it is used to decide the future of the New Zealand education system.

Assessment (noun)

Something politicians pretend to have just invented. (See also National Standards)

Attrition (noun)

A reduction in the number of students that occurs when students leave and are not replaced. (See also Charter Schools)

Charter School (noun, pl)

The cure for poverty, drugs, unemployment, cancer and war. This miracle is achieved by giving private companies money to run schools at a far higher cost than state schools. Worked well overseas where it increased wages for select individuals and raised notable profits for charter chains. It has also led to a meteoric rise in the number of people learning the meaning of the words ‘attrition’ and ‘corporate fraud’. Sadly it has not led to any such jump in student achievement.

Consultation (noun)

The action or process of saying you will formally consult relevant people or bodies. Government consultation usually involves earplugs. (See also Select Committee)

EDUCANZ (noun)

A castration device used on teachers to render them impotent.

GERM (Global Education Reform Movement) (noun)

A rampant illness that has infected many countries worldwide. Symptoms include introducing standardisation, test-based accountability, league tables, performance pay, and privatisation. Can prove seriously debilitating to students, teachers, parents and education systems. There is only one known antidote, called ‘group resistance’.

National Standards (noun, pl.)

Fuzzy benchmarks that allow students, schools and teachers to be judged as failing, okay or adequate depending on how near the country is to an election.

School (noun)

(1) an institution for educating students. (2) a business for raising money. (3) a dispensable entity that may be closed after an earthquake

Select Committee (noun)

A group appointed to pretend to investigate and report on a particular matter for Government. The Committee’s main job is to make it seem that they will take into consideration the views of the general public whilst studiously avoiding actually incorporating any of those views in the final (pre-ordained) plan.

Students (noun, pl.)

(1) denoting someone who is studying in order to pass a test or exam so that teachers can be judged (see also Value Added Measures) (2) A unit for raising profits for businesses. (See also Charter Schools and Venture capitalists)

Teacher (noun)

A person whose occupation is undervalued by government.

Transparency (noun)

The act of responding to Freedom of Information Act requests in hours or days to certain individuals. Requests from others enter a holding pattern similar to that above Wellington airport when there’s a Southerly and may or may not be dealt with in due course.

Value Added Measures (VAM) (noun)

The use of complex mathematics to manipulate education data in order to determine teachers’ pay. Unreliable and ineffective, it can at times be fatal. Best avoided.

Venture Capitalists(VCs) (noun, pl.)

A group that invests in enterprises in search of financial profit. VCs’ businesses may fail, in which case clients will be moved to another facility (possible state run) as the investors take their money and run. (for Clients, see also Students) (for Facility and Business, see also School)

Note – this dictionary is best used when reading certain newspapers, watching Parliamentary Question Time, and engaging with the Education Minister.

Whether it’s charter schools, National Standards, Teach First, or another reform, many people involved have good intentions. They want to improve things, try something new and innovate, they say.

The thing is, good intentions don’t mean the plan will work. Good intentions don’t necessarily equate to an understanding of the full impact of a proposal. Good intentions are no guarantee that the reformer can make good on their rhetoric.

Matt Di Carlo put it best when he said that reformers “may be doomed to stall out in the long run, not because their ideas are all bad, and certainly not because they lack the political skills and resources to get their policies enacted. Rather, they risk failure for a simple reason: They too often make promises that they cannot keep.”

And there’s the rub.

The promises of charter schools are many:

John Banks stated that ““The charter school initiative is one of the most exciting initiatives we have to contribute to solving our most urgent educational problem; the long tail of underachievement.”

Really? It’s a very bold claim, and we are yet to have any outline of how that is to be achieved or evidence that it is happening. It’s early days, to be sure, but what evidence do we have?

And we are right to be sceptical – we have seen such promises from reformers in the USA and England, and what we have actually got instead is a failure of the hype to match the facts.

Look at the USA’s Race To The Top policy, which gave many states “tens or hundreds of million dollars over four years in exchange for dramatic changes to their education systems. States pledged to accelerate student performance even while adopting more rigorous academic standards and to rate teachers and principals in part on students’ performance. To be competitive, states also had to do away with limits or bans on charter schools, open alternative routes to certification for teachers and improve teacher preparation programs.” Source

Did it raise achievement? No.

Even the US Education Department admits that Race To The Top has struggled to achieve its aims. Source

What Race To The Top did achieve is a rise in the use of unqualified teachers, an almighty battles for teachers’ employment rights, and the growth of charter schools.

Another popular promise is around the number of students the reforms will help. England’s Free Schools were meant to serve about 200,000 students. Instead, it is estimated that by 2015 there will actually be under 20,000 students in free schools – 180,000 short of those planned. Source

At present, New Zealnd’s charter schools are not faring any better, with enrolled students below the minimum promised.

Charter schools are often touted as progressive and inclusive, offering something better for minority groups, and yet “the overall effect on society is to deepen social segregation. Research shows that long-running free school policies in the US and Sweden have fuelled social segregation in both countries.” Source

In New Zealand it appears that there are no ORS funded special education needs students in charter schools. Hardly inclusive. Hardly progressive. The promise again fails to meet the spin.

Then there’s choice.

Apparently, charter schools are about giving parents choice. Well, we already have Special Character schools, Steiner Schools, home schooling, private schools, bilingual schools, correspondence school, Te kura kaupapa Maori, State integrated schools, special schools, Health Units, and teen parent units, single sex schools, day schools, boarding schools and more. Any new school could have been brought into that system, so the choice argument is wafer thin.

And once your school district comprises 100% charter schools, where’s your choice then? Ask Recovery District, New Orleans, and they’ll tell you it adds up to less choice than they had before. A lot less.

Yes, the promise of charter schools is shiny and bright. The reality – well, it tends to be less clear cut.

]]>https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/09/13/education-reformers-mean-well-so-whats-the-problem/feed/2Why has it all gone quiet on Charter Schools?https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/08/30/why-has-it-all-gone-quiet-on-charter-schools/
https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/08/30/why-has-it-all-gone-quiet-on-charter-schools/#commentsFri, 29 Aug 2014 21:27:16 +0000http://thedailyblog.co.nz/?p=51609They’re one of ACT’s flagship policies and the National Party have been gung ho in supporting them.

So how come we’re not hearing Hekia Parata, Jamie Whyte, Catherine Isaac, et al singing from the rafters about what a resounding success charter schools are?

The silence worries me.

So, I have some questions:

Do all five current charter schools have at least the minimum number of students they must have according to their contracts?

How many students have they lost?

Have any of the current schools had ERO there to do readiness reviews, yet, and if so, what did they say?

Do the schools lose funding if a pupil leaves? (Like mainstream state schools do)

How many ORS funded students (students with significant special educational needs) do the charters cater for?

Whatever happened to Catherine Isaac’s working group – where’s the report they surely did after all of their unbiased research?

Given charters are so costly compared with other forms of education in New Zealand, are they providing good value for our tax money?

Why has it gone silent on the new charter schools due to start next year?

Are the initial problems at Whangaruru resolved now?

How does having charter schools starting at preschool age (as indicated by the Minister may happen) help with the mythical 20%?

Jamie Whyte this week said charter schools are the answer to issues of bullying that LGBTI students face – how?

Leading Maori educationalists signed an open letter to government opposing charter schools. have their concerns been dealt with?

Given charters were set up to help with the mythical “1 in 5” who do not get NCEA 2, is there any evidence that this group’s achievement is rising?

Charter schools have not improved educational success in USA, England or Sweden, In fact all have dropped significantly in PISA tables. So what has been put in place to ensure the same does not happen in New Zealand?

Man alive, I could go on, but I am late for my deadline and that’s enough to ponder on.

I look forward to some detailed answers.

I assume Alwyn Poole of Villa Education Trust – one of the first five charter schools – will be typing furiously right now, as he always does, with rebuttals. Sadly, you might not see those answers as he only ever writes to people privately, and seems reluctant to engage in the public arena.

Which leads to another question – why the silence from charter schools? Are they gagged by Ministry? Do they not have answers that would stand up to scrutiny?

Who knows.

One thing’s for sure, for such a radical change to our education system, that was brought in with so many promises and against fierce opposition, there are still far more questions than answers on charter schools.

Hekia Parata had just wound up, and Tracey Martin MP took her place at the lectern. Without a pause she said that the education sector had been under prolonged and determined attack from this government.

And then, boom, she underlined the exact problem in education at the moment.

It was sublime

Martin said that what the Minister of Education proposes to do often sounds perfectly sensible and that if what Parata intended were what she said she intended, things would be fine.

The trouble, said Martin, is that what Hekia Parata says and what she intends are not the same thing.

In other words, the Minister speaks with forked tongue.

Say/Do

This was particularly prescient because later in the week we were to hear from Nicky Hager that this modus operandi is almost National Party policy: Say what sounds good and do what you like.

The trouble for Hekia Parata is that teachers and parents have already noticed the discrepancy between what is said and what is done.

This is why we mistrust the Minister.

A history of forked tongedness

We heard her say she was looking at funding schools based on achievement outcomes for students.

She denied it.

We heard Hekia say she would consult fairly with the schools she intended to merge or close in Christchurch.

She didn’t.

We heard her say, when announcing the proposed closures and mergers of Christchurch schools, “This is genuine consultation.”

It wasn’t.

We heard her say of Christchurch schools “We’ve done everything we can to try and minimise that on the back of what’s been a very difficult situation.”

She hadn’t.

We heard her say at her announcement to close Salisbury School that ““[a]t the very heart of this difficult decision lies the opportunity to provide services and support for more children with complex needs in their local community.”

Not true.

The decision to close Salisbury had been made in 2011, before the review was even announced. And just ask the community in Phillipstown how well they feel they were listened to during the ‘consultations’.

And so back to this week’s education forum.

Spin, avoidance and outright untruths

With our own ears, a packed room heard Hekia say that special needs is an area of special focus for her.

Rubbish.

She said the majority of parents and teachers were pleased with National Standards.

Nope.

She said the new wraparound service for children with special education needs is working well.

Tosh.

She said IES is just the ticket for improving schools.

Bull.

She said the select committee took heed of submissions on EDUCANZ.

Like hell they did.

She said partnership schools are doing well.

Prove it.

She said the biggest impact on student achievement is good teachers.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

And she said there is not a problem with low morale in the education sector.

You have GOT to be %$#@*&^ kidding me, lady!

Seeing through the obfuscation

You see, many of us sat there through the Education Amendment Bill submissions, both the first and the second lot, and we heard many, many people make incredible well reasoned arguments for changes to the proposals. And we saw the Minister each time make just a teeny token change to appease the masses and allow a positive press release. The rest was completely ignored. The plan was cut and dried before anyone submitted a thing.

And so now we know all too well what Hekia’s brand of consultation looks like.

Does it look like the Minister has told us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

And have you any reason to believe, given another term, she’d be any better?

As Hager says in Dirty Politics, “how easy it is to spin and manipulate.”

“Oh you teachers, you just want everything to stay the same – what’s wrong with choice? Bloody teachers. Typical that you don’t want testing – trying to hide that you’re all useless. What about our poor kids? Gnash gnash rant rant...”

That’s what I hear, in various forms, over and over again in the debate about charter schools, and it’s an ill-informed, simplistic and sometimes downright outrageous accusation against the profession. The huge majority of teachers care deeply for the education and well-being of their students – indeed all students.

Also, teachers are busy people. They can’t be bothered arguing about things that don’t matter, and they certainly haven’t the time or energy to fight good policy. So when they do stand up and start asking questions, there’s a good reason for it.

Let me just be clear about how most teachers feel:

We do not fear change – we embrace it.

We do not object to choice – we love it.

We do not fear professional development – we enjoy learning.

And we do not oppose testing – we test regularly and value the role that testing plays.

What teachers do object to, though, is change that will not benefit students and is ill-thought-out.

Let’s look at some of the claims.

Teachers Think That Testing Is the Work of the Devil

Nope, not even close. Testing can be fabulous. We can learn a lot about where our students are from tests, and we analyse the results alongside all that we know of the student to plan where the student needs to go next. National Standards, however, are not so hot. Don’t confuse the two.

National Standards benchmarks are ropey (and John Key used that word about the standards first, not teachers).

The data is out of date before parents see it. The standards don’t tell parents or anyone about how children are progressing. They do no more than previous methods of informing parents did, and are no more reliable.

What would be of more benefit than National Standards?

More time and resources to do classroom testing and plan from it so it is immediate and current and is used for each child to move forward right now. Timely feedback is very important.

More training on testing methods so all teachers understand what good testing and quality analysis look like.

Testing needs to be effective and useful, and help children progress, otherwise it’s pointless to anyone other than politicians.

Teachers Are Useless and Don’t Want To Improve

If you believe this, you don’t know many teachers. Some are brilliant, some are great, some are good, and a few could do with improving. Like any other profession, in fact.

Rather than beating up on an entire profession, would it not be better to add to the opportunities for professional development, fund more Masters courses, and support more mentoring programmes like ACET?

It would also help to make sure that all teacher training courses are of a very high standard and are teaching trainees about different methods of pedagogy, know in detail about how children learn and the stages they generally pass through, and know in detail about dyslexia, ADD, autism, Asperger’s, behavioural problems, TESOL, and dealing with distressed children.

Teachers are very keen to learn more and do ever better. It’d be a good plan to support them fully in that.

Teachers Don’t Want Choice – Same Schools For Everyone

Actually, no. We all know there is room for choice and that it’s a good thing. We know that no one system fits all. Which is why, in New Zealand, we already have Special Character schools, Steiner Schools, home schooling, private schools, bilingual schools, correspondence school, Te Kura Kaupapa Maori, State integrated schools, special schools, Health Units, teen parent units, single sex schools, day schools, and boarding schools. [1]

The concerns about charter schools are not about choice but about the fact that worldwide they have been shown to cause more problems than they solve, increase segregation, lead to many fraud and mismanagement cases, and rarely improve students’ educations.

What charter schools have proven to be excellent at is moving money out of the state sector and into private hands, and therein lies the the reason they are promoted.

None of that is to say the people running New Zealand charter schools are not doing the best they can. The issue is not with individual schools, it is with the charter school system, which, once allowed, brings more problems than it solves. It’s the kind of situation we really don’t need in our education system.

…And They Don’t Even Want Experts, Just Because They Don’t Have a Teaching Qualification!

Yes, we do. We already have them! We already allow for experts or teachers without formal teaching qualifications to work in our schools under the Limited Authority to Teach (LAT). That system has been in place for years, allowing many people without teaching qualifications to successfully work in schools.

So no, it’s not the case that we don’t want anyone at all without a teaching degree. It’s more that we don’t want people with no teaching degree and no experience and no expertise, which is what can happen. Once the changes are put into law in the Education Act, there will be no guarantee that the untrained staff will be experts in anything.

You have to ask yourself why that would be a good move?

For The Love Of All Things Holy, Please Don’t Let Things Change

… said no teacher ever.

There are lots of things teachers would love to change. Off the top of my head:

What about employing more admin staff and assistants so that teachers can spend more time on the educational stuff and less time printing, putting displays up, putting books back, and so on?

A far better support system for special needs students would be a great change that would help all students.

What about more teacher aides, and a good system for them to get qualifications and training?

We would love to change that fact that so many children come to school hungry.

We would love there to be an honest recognition that socioeconomic factors impact students in many serious ways, and then for there to be support for children in those situations.

We would love to have more art, music, te reo and sport specialists in school teaching kids or teaching us to teach kids.

We would love it if change to education policy was based on sound research rather than ideology.

We would like to have school nurses visiting regularly.

We would love to have sound gifted and talented programmes in all schools.

We would want to change and reverse the decline in our libraries and loss of librarians.

We would love it if there were no school donations.

Yes, there’s plenty we’d be more than happy to change. And not just for change’s sake.

The only way to progress our system is for all of us – teachers, whanau, the whole community – to research, query and learn, and for us to share ideas and listen to each other.

All the data in the world is meaningless if there’s not enough training and support for the people trying to make a difference. So read up, ask questions, look into what is already available in New Zealand, find out what is working elsewhere, talk to kids, ask questions of teachers and politicians, and help identify changes that really will help progress our children further and faster.

To have the Education Minister and the sycophantic mainstream media constantly asserting that the only way to improve the education our children get is to reform the system by privatisation, performance pay, and the collection of a few data sets is misinformation at best and at worst it is downright untrue.

There is another way to improve things. In fact many other ways, and those in power make a very deliberate choice on which way to go.

If they choose, like the current government, to actively ignore poverty, focus on test scores above all else, cut help for students with difficulties, refuse to engage honestly with educators, try to close down highly specialised special needs schools, cut professional development for staff, and ignore the desperate please of communities already broken by natural disasters, then they surely can hardly cry “shock horror” when a tide of opinion turns against them.

An education system needs to reflect the country it is in and reflects the ethos of the schools’ wider communities. To ignore the wishes of those communities is arrogant folly.

Countries that have moved towards more testing, performance pay, charter schools, voucher systems and so on have not improved their students’ educational outcome. Test scores have not shot up. Pisa scores almost invariably go down, down, down. Parents are not singing from the rafters about the brilliant new systems. It’s hogwash and a sham. Those changes benefit one group and one group only – those who make money from the system. The likes of Lord Nash who stepped seamlessly from the UK Government into running an Academy chain (charter schools by another name). (A chain that has more than one run in with the authorities regarding its use of public funds, I might add.)

There are experts lining up from all of these countries pleading with us not to follow the rotten path they have found themselves on:

Dr Diane Ravitch helped set up the US charter school system and now fiercely opposes it as the system as it now stands has little relationship to the one proposed, instead giving the likes of PitBull the mechanism to set up a school or two.

Professor Ernesto Treviño of the Universidad Diego Portales, says the challenge facing both Chile and New Zealand is inequality and poverty in education, and warns of the dangers of thinking charter schools are the answer, saying

“that is not the way to go to improve equity or quality. In fact, competition among schools tends to do the opposite, that is, to widen educational disparities.”

“Now we have an education market where schools compete against each other and are trying to gain prestige. Collaboration among schools has almost disappeared, and the logic is that the wins of some schools are at the cost of the losses of many educational institutions. In this context, effective improvement practices tend to be guarded as a secret, instead of shared in order to provide better educational opportunities for the most disadvantaged children.”

“The evidence shows us that market style education only provides small gains in quality but creates huge gaps in inequality. That’s something we certainly don’t want to see in New Zealand, which needs to improve equality.”

Other experts such as Pasi Sahlberg stress that there are other ways to improve a system, and that the first issue is to be honest in addressing where the problems lie. When visiting New Zealand, he spoke emphatic​ally​ about the importance of all students hav​ing​ the same chance at a good education at all levels,​ and ​stressed ​that in order to improve education you must improve equity.

​ He also stressed that while some countries are moving to less or even no training for teachers, the system in Finland is based on a very high standard of teacher training. (2) (3)​

​All of these experts are at pains to stress that there is always a choice about which path a system is pushed​ along​, and the reformer path may be good for profits but it isn’t proving to be particularly good for students.

Is that really the Kiwi way? Profits before people? Ideology before evidence? I don’t think it is.

The huge majority of Kiwis value our education system and recognise it is a good one. Most people want to build on the great things we already have going on in our schools and communities rather than causing divisions and competition. Most people realise that our neediest students need and deserve extra support, and that that support in the end benefits us all as those students achieve more and give back more throughout their lives. Most people recognise that better training and professional development for classroom teachers can only be a good thing.

Most people want our teachers and students supported, not ridden over roughshod by horse and rider in very large blinkers.​

]]>https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/07/12/education-reforms-there-is-a-choice/feed/6National Standards – Resistance is not futilehttps://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/06/14/national-standards-resistance-is-not-futile/
https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/06/14/national-standards-resistance-is-not-futile/#commentsFri, 13 Jun 2014 19:23:45 +0000http://thedailyblog.co.nz/?p=47882So far this week I have had to counsel three different parents who were distressed after hearing their child is not “at standard” according to National Standards. I also heard recently that a friend’s child was above standard in reading. Not surprising in itself – that’s what National Standards are for. Except in each case the child had only been at school just over a term.

These are 5 year olds.

Ministry advises that “The National Standards are signposts of expected progress and achievement that apply after a student has been at school for one, two, or three years. From year 4, the standards apply to the year level (year 4, 5, 6, 7, 8).” So how can a child be deemed above, at or below standard when they have clocked up around one term of schooling?

DODGY BENCHMARKS

Children learn like they grow, in bursts. In fact, no, that’s not altogether true, because when a child grows they don’t tend to shrink – but when learning children do go backwards as well as forwards. That’s normal learning. So judging normal average children to be behind at writing, reading or maths so early in their schooling strikes me as utterly bizarre.

It’s not as if National Standards are reliable. It’s now stuff of legend that even John Key admitted the data was shonky. Less well known is that last year Ministry unilaterally moved all writing levels down after they had been supplied by schools. Not after reassessing them with teachers, you understand – no – Ministry just thought they looked too high and moved them down. Huh?!

It hardly inspires faith, does it?

CLARITY & TRANSPARENCY?

But back to the distressed parents. In each case the parent could not explain to me what exactly the issue with their child’s learning was. One was beyond upset, worrying that her child was “failing” – and that she was failing her child. She isn’t.

Understand clearly what reading, writing and maths skills are expected at each stage of your child’s schooling.

Understand how well your child is doing and what your school is doing to help your child progress, including receiving plain-English reports.

Ask questions and have discussions with teachers that will help your child’s learning.

Improve your understanding of and confidence in your school and the wider education system.

In these cases and many others that have come my way, it is safe to say National Standards is not helping with any of those things. What they are helping with is confusing parents and, in may cases, scaring them witless to-boot. It seems that National Standards are not achieving their aim of inspiring “confidence in your school and the wider education system”.

RAISING ACHIEVEMENT?

Those in favour of National Standards argue that “Providing high quality data that helps us all to understand and support a student’s learning is one of the ways the Government is working to raise student achievement and ensure this happens.”

If that’s so true, why do charter schools and private schools not have to use National Standards? Particularly in the case of charters,the whole argument for these schools has been that they are for students who are underachieving, in which case you would think that if NS was so incredibly useful then charters would have to use them, too.

It’s all rather confusing.

OPTING OUT

Meanwhile, more and more parents are saying no to National Standards. Any mention of opting out brings a flurry of readers, questions and support. Each new opt out report seems to spur others to follow suit.

Many do not see the benefit of comparing any child’s learning with others or against an arbitrary benchmark that has little to no merit. They know, too, that National Standards have the potential to do harm. So they are saying no.

One thing is for sure, if these dodgy and divisive standards are ever to be done away with, parents need to speak up. Teachers, BOTs and principals have found their hands tied, but parents are not bound in the same way.

Parents’ voices count. We saw that with the technology teachers debacle, where protests lead to the Minister backtracking at a rate of knots and a fast change of policy.

When it comes to effecting change to unpopular education, resistance is not futile. Not if it’s parents doing the resisting.

When it comes to the privatisation of public services I thought nothing could worry me more than what is being done to education and prison systems worldwide, but I am beyond alarmed to read in today’s Guardian that the Department for Education in the UK is seriously considering privatising their version of CYFS.

To put such sensitive matters into the hands of companies with a profit motive is frighteningly foolish.

The Guardian reports:

“Professor Eileen Munro, whom Gove commissioned to carry out an independent review of child protection published in 2011, said establishing a market in child protection would create perverse incentives for private companies to either take more children into care or leave too many languishing with dangerous families.

“It’s a bad idea,” she told the Guardian. “It’s the state’s responsibility to protect people from maltreatment. It should not be delegated to a profit-making organisation.””

Let’s just be clear on what privatisation of public systems can do:

Prisons

In England, G4S was fined for overcharging on a contract to tag offenders. Bad enough – but privatising prisons in the USA lead to astounding corruption where two judges were taking bribes amounting to tens of millions of dollars from PA Child Care and Western PA Child Care detention centres to jail children. The Cash for Kids scandal saw over 6000 children jailed after improper trails – 4000 convictions had to be overturned – and this is in just one courtroom. All because a greedy company needed more ‘customers’ to make more profit and was happy to wrongly jail children in order to create the demand.

It doesn’t end there.

Schools

Privatising public schools has lead to all manner of problems in the UK and the USA. Fraud cases turn up weekly, schools being closed because they promise more than they deliver, schools with barely any pupils, students that don’t exist on the books and receiving funding, and the huge attrition rates, especially for special needs or other students that are deemed to be more difficult to teach. Who cares about the students themselves? What matters, it seems, is profit, and therefore image is more important than fact and far, far more important than the students themselves.

Testing

Privatising the mass testing of school children (rather than in-class testing by teachers) is costing millions in the USA and in Australia, for example. Pearson make a mint. Parents and teachers are leading huge protests. The children are stressed. But the money-making machine rolls on. Pearson now have their hands on myriad areas of education, not least of all standardised testing, school books, a computer-based curriculum for secondary schools, PISA testing, and are investing in private schools – just consider the number of conflicts there. But again, money trumps all.

Our Most Vulnerable

And now child protection services is to be next. I am doubly fearful because any half-baked ideas that the USA and UK have undertaken have turned up in Aotearoa not that long afterwards. Charter schools, private prisons, and we are well on the road to this government forcing standardised testing on us. I dread to think what the privatisation of CYFS would do for our vulnerable youngsters.

There are real dangers of introducing the profit element into vital public services. You make these service into for-profit businesses, you create a demand, and you distort the focus of those providing the service. At that point it is no longer a public service, it’s just a business.

As Professor Munro said: “It’s the state’s responsibility to protect people from maltreatment. It should not be delegated to a profit-making organisation.”

Aotearoa beware.

]]>https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/05/18/outsourcing-child-welfare-where-will-the-madness-end/feed/15Education: a crisis real or imaginedhttps://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/05/04/education-a-crisis-real-or-imagined/
https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/05/04/education-a-crisis-real-or-imagined/#commentsSat, 03 May 2014 19:54:18 +0000http://thedailyblog.co.nz/?p=45932The purposeful manipulation of extreme situations by governments for the benefit of businesses is the essence of disaster capitalism, where governments undertake rapid-fire corporate change in societies reeling from shock. As well as applying to situations such as 9/11, the stock market crashes, and the Falklands War, it is being played out here and abroad in education.

It took little time, for example, for Hekia Parata to jump on Christchurch schools and start closing and merging them post-quake. Changes would be necessary at some point post-quake, for sure. But to strike that blow so soon, when houses are not yet repaired, communities are still in flux, and people are still under the most extreme stress is not just heartless, it is unnecessary. So why do it?

The high lord of disaster capitalism, has an answer for that:

Not facts, research, and a sound basis for change. Not co-operation. Not a mandate from the people of your country. No. You need crisis.

Getting creative

So, if no actual crisis is handy but the government has changes it wishes to implement, what can government do? Well that’s simple – create a crisis.

It’s something our government is doing in spades.

Consider just this past year or so. There’s the supposed crisis in benefit fraud that allows for drugs testing, CERA and the removal of democracy in Christchurch, the crisis of potential terrorism that was used to justify the wholesale spying on ordinary citizens, and of course the manufactured crisis in education that has been used to push through reform after reform after reform.

How does disaster capitalism play out in education?

TESTING – Bring in students testing so that the levels can be manipulated to support current plans (look the tests show ‘they’ the teachers are failing the students, look the tests show ‘we’ the government are improving things)

GAG THE PROFESSION- Oust and undermine teachers and principals who resist government plans

GAG THE COMMUNITY – Remove or ignore community voices e.g. by undertaking fake consultations

TAKE CONTROL – Take over the teachers’ professional body – give them no representation

Parents in England and the USA promised more choice, better schools, improved achievement have found themselves sorely disappointed. The privatisation promise has rarely lived up to the rhetoric, with charter schools often bringing more problems than the state schools they replace, with fraud, mismanagement, and exclusion of pupils all of concern.

And no rise in achievement.

So much for a brighter future. So much for choice.

“Create a crisis, real or imagined, and then push through your reforms.” So catchy it should be the title of National’s policy document.

Oh hello, select committee … sorry to interrupt your tea and bickies, but I have something on my mind that I really need to talk to you about.

You see, word on the street is that you are planning to rejig the Teachers Council into a 21st century thing of beauty called EDUCANZ. (Nice acronym, by the way – I like how you squeezed Aotearoa in there so it would say canz at the end – swish.)

Anyway, yes, this fabulous new Teachers Council. Great, I thought, no more of that nasty 20th century rubbish that largely worked just fine and only needed some tightening up around the edges – no, out with the old and in with the super modern and fabulous 21st century education doohicker. Sounds grand. This could be the next big thing!

But before I went to Stationery Warehouse and celebrated by spending my own money on classroom supplies, I did what any good teacher does, and checked out some of those dainty wee things that make all the difference … what are they called again? Facts. Yes, that’s them.

Well this sounds good – because that’s what we all want, isn’t it? Well trained, high-quality teachers. So far so good – and how reassuring to know myself and Mme P are on the same page.

Just one little query, though… This bit about untrained teachers.

The new legislation allows someone “with specialist skills but not a teaching qualification” to teach for three years at a time without the employer even having to prove that they have tried to fill the position with a trained and qualified teacher.

Wait! Currently a person is given Limited Authority to Teach (LAT) only where a registered teacher can’t be found for the specific role. But this Bill will allow schools to hire an LAT without even looking for a qualified teacher with the necessary skills?

I’m confused, I thought Our Great Leader said she recognised the value in high-quality teaching? But now you’re saying schools don’t have to look for a trained teacher first.

Maybe I missed something there, around what you consider to be high-quality.

Safety First

Esteemed Leader has made a huge deal about safety for our tamariki, and I see the new legislation will be changing the procedures for dealing with complaints. I’m not at all sure why you needed a whole new Council for that, though. Couldn’t procedures be made more rigorous without all that carry on – after all, it’s not that hard? But given the huge scale of the problem – under 60 out of over 100,000 teachers – maybe you felt marshall law was the only way?

Just to be clear on this safety thing, though – teachers with a criminal conviction are already banned from teaching under the current law, right?

So, one question … if it’s all about safety, how come someone with criminal convictions will be able to be hired under a Limited Authority to Teach?

Let me get this right: if an LAT ‘teacher’ works, say, at a charter school, they cannot be checked upon under the Official Information Act or in many cases by the Ombudsman, either. And all that despite the fact they can have criminal convictions.

I’m confused? Are you concerned about safety or not?

Profession Profession Profession

Never fear, I thought, because all of these things will be governed by our professional body, and so if they are not in the best interests of students or don’t make sense, we can have them reconsidered. After all, the Boss herself said:

“Teaching needs a strong professional body that provides leadership to, and is owned by, the profession”

“Yes, we do! We do!” cried the teachers, “We already have one, in fact! It’s called the Teachers Council. You might have heard of it? You’re about to close it down and replace it with EDUCANZ.”

You see, what worries me and a few other is that the Education Amendment Bill 2 states that on EDUCANZ teachers will have not one single representative voted for or otherwise chosen by them. None. Zip diddly doodah.

And, I feel rude asking, but is it true that the Minister gets to choose every single member of the new Council? And that there is no minimum number of teachers she must choose, so she could just not have any at all on there?

Because, with all that in mind, I am very curious just how EDUCANZ can be owned by the profession?

In fact, this very question left me in quite a spin for quite some time until I had a Eureka moment: I realised that what Mme P meant was that teachers will have to pay for EDUCANZ.

Ahhhh…. I see. We pay for it but we get no say in it.

I have to say, it sounds more 14th than 21st century , and not-quite-state-of-the-art when it comes to democratic representation.

]]>https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/04/23/educanz-educant/feed/7Well colour me outedhttps://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/04/05/well-colour-me-outed/
https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/04/05/well-colour-me-outed/#commentsSat, 05 Apr 2014 00:19:31 +0000http://thedailyblog.co.nz/?p=44550A few times recently I have been accused of being partisan. And yes, it was given as an accusation, as if Sherlock Holmes himself had caught me out being a lefty despite boasting of shares in coal, a pro-life stance and an RSS feed featuring the best of Kiwi Blog, Judith Collins and WhaleOil.

As if.

So let me come out of the non-existent closet. I’m a lefty.

I am more about wethan I. Given the option, I’d choose a farm house with solar power over a penthouse apartment. I support government ownership of key assets. I want to see more trains and bike lanes. I think the minimum wage should be higher. And yes, I believe in the merit of a good, free public education for all.

There, has that cleared it up?

And does it make me partisan?

Well it depends very much on which definition you mean.

Definition of partisan: ” ‘partisan’ has come to refer to an individual with a psychological identification with one or the other of the major parties” Source

Yes indeed, if that is your meaning when you throw the term at me, then throw away. Clearly I do identify more with one or two parties than with others. Caught red handed. Or green handed.

But given the tone and the manner in which the term ‘partisan’ is used , I suspect what enraged commentators are actually accusing me of is blindly supporting certain parties’ policies and a reluctance to compromise with any political opponents. The implication is that I’d agree with anything Labour and the Greens say and boo hiss at anything National or ACT say.

To this I cry bullcrap.

If I am opposed to a National/ACT education policy, it is not because it came from National or ACT…

It’s because the policy is something I do not believe in and would not believe in no matter who was putting it forward.

When the Ministry, under National, changed the rules so that students could more easily access special needs help for exams, I praised the move because it was a good one. Whoever puts them forward, good policies get a huge cheer from me. Yay National on this one.

– Likewise, when there are two thousand submissions against charter schools and NACT forge ahead with them anyway, I call foul.

– When special schools like Salisbury are targeted for illegal closure, I call disgrace.

– When Christchurch communities are told they will be consulted regarding closures but are run over roughshod, I shout shame on you.

– When performance pay for teachers is mooted over and over again despite a mountain of evidence against it, I say crap.

– When the Teachers Council is replaced by EDUCANZ which will governed by Minister-appointed people and not one single teacher, I yell you have to be joking.

– When private schools are given huge cash injections despite there being available places for those students in nearby state schools, I cry crony capitalism.

– And when our most vulnerable students are suddenly at the whim of low funding and a poor wrap-around service, I just weep.

And I do mean weep.

In the end, I would rather stand up for what I believe in than watch our education system battered time and time again and just stand by.

So, if I seem too harsh on National, it’s not because I automatically rail against all that they do merely because they are blue. I rail against this government because their policies are nearly always, to me, heinous.

This year the Key Government has become unusually upbeat about schools. ‘Festivals of Education’ are celebrating ‘innovations, collaborations and achievements’ within the sector. An ‘Inspired by U’ campaign has been encouraging New Zealanders to write in praise of teachers who have inﬂuenced their lives. In January, $359 million of new funding for principal and teacher ‘super-roles’ was announced, the so-called ‘Investing in Educational Success’ policy.

This enthusiasm by the Government comes after ﬁve years of being critical of schools and teachers and applying often damaging policies. It also comes in election year and just in advance of an ‘International Summit on the Teaching Profession’ where education ministers, heads of teacher unions and teacher leaders from the OECD are gathering in Wellington. New Zealand’s Education Minister, Hekia Parata, has claimed it is a credit to the quality of our education system that this event is being held in New Zealand.

But this is the reality:

The installation highlights how the Key Government’s education policies are creating a grave situation for the New Zealand school system. The chosen analogy is of New Zealand schools as a hospital patient suﬀering after years of bad treatment: ‘Ngā kura māuiui o Aotearoa / The sick New Zealand schools’.

Such treatments include having had to put in place the National Standards with their damaging positioning of struggling learners and intensiﬁcation of staﬀ workloads; loss of professional development quality and opportunities as the work of school advisors has been contracted out and narrowed, the distraction of the (failed) attempt to increase class sizes, disproportionate funding increases for socially-exclusive private schools; integration of some socially-exclusive private schools into the state system so they get government support and can still charge large ‘donations’, allowing wealthy businesspeople to shape the direction of education policy (philanthrocapitalism), and the Christchurch school mergers and closures. There are lots of other problems too and more are discussed in the following slides.

Exposed to GERM (Global Education Reform Movement).

This is about a business model being imposed on New Zealand schools through managerialism, market competition and privatisation. Privatisation of education comes in many forms, both obvious and hidden, including contracting out, PPPs, charter schools and addition support for private schools. It leads to schooling being regarded as a commodity rather than something done for the beneﬁt of each child and for the common good.

Bedbound under the weight of oﬃcial requirements.

Managerial accountabilities have brought a huge growth of reporting for teachers, principals and Boards of Trustees. Much of this is a waste of precious time that could be beier used working with and for children and young people.

Required to believe Government elixirs are always the best.

There is lack of consultation with those in schools, or consultation only on the detail of policy. Government appointees are taking over from sector or elected representatives and there is the dismissal of research that doesn’t ﬁt with the Government’s objectives.

In 2009 Deputy Prime Minister Bill English said in the House: ‘This Government has the capacity to make its own distinctions between good advice and bad advice. Advice we disagree with is bad advice; advice we agree with is good advice’. We thought he was joking…

Under-fed with a diet of mainly numeracy and literacy.

Many elements of the New Zealand Curriculum are being lost as teachers seek to boost National Standards results in numeracy and literacy. New Zealand schools were already very focused on these areas before the National Standards: now they are often over-emphasising them. The same will probably become true of the eﬀects of Ngā Whanaketanga in Māori-medium schools with the public release of their data.

Patient records inappropriately displayed.

The 2012 decision to scan National Standards data on to a Government website regardless of format or quality was disgraceful. In that year special schools for children and young people with severe special needs ended up being publicly labelled as 100 ‘well below’. While the Government has taken steps to to ‘ﬁx’ that problem, the wider issues of the quality of the National Standards data and of releasing raw data for each school that cannot illustrate progress have not been addressed. Meanwhile the ‘Public Achievement Information (PAI) Pipeline’ will continue to spew out endless misleading infographics.

At secondary level, raw NCEA data has also been publicly released for many years. As a nation we have become used to this, but it doesn’t make it acceptable.

Continuing Novopain.

What does the ongoing Novopay debacle say about valuing teachers and other school staﬀ?

Disregarded during the birth of charter schools.

Charter (‘Partnership’) schools will undermine state and integrated schools schools. Charter schools in some ways depend on the state school system but policy also provides charter schools with unfair advantages.

Constantly criticised leading to a depressed state.

Until just recently the Government rarely had anything positive to say about most schools and teachers. The publication of raw achievement data and the setting of arbitrary targets by Government has opened up new opportunities for unfair criticism of schools and teachers from politicians, business leaders and other commentators.

Fearful that the illness could be terminal.

The ‘reorganisation’ of Christchurch schools has resulted in the highly contested closure of schools in that city. It has also raised concerns that schools in other parts of the country will be deemed ‘surplus to requirements’ even if they are important to local communities.

Recent praise and support from Government is too little, too late. It is hard to take seriously when Government has been failing to listen to those in schools.

‘Super-roles’ contributing to the malaise.

Teachers and principals are justiﬁably suspicious of the ‘Investing in Educational Success’ proposals announced in January 2014. The training that those in the new roles will receive, the accountabilities they will have, and the extra pay they will get, could provide powerful means of taking greater control over schools to force compliance with damaging policies. This reform also seems to be only part of wider changes to the governance and leadership of schools that are currently underway. There are many more obvious problems as well, such as staﬀ being taken out of school communities that actually require their full-time commitment.

Prognosis is poor – however the patient could recover with more appropriate treatment.

Careful concern for children and young people and those who teach them needs to be put at the heart of New Zealand education policy. This means policy that genuinely recognises and responds to the diverse contexts within which schools are located and the kinds of children and young people they serve. It also means better professional development for teachers and the appreciation that teachers work within highly collaborative professional cultures and genuinely want to improve their practice.

Education policy also needs to recognise that when teachers are put under the wrong pressures, their teaching becomes less authentic. New Zealand as a small nation is usually a ‘borrower’ rather than a ‘lender’ of education policy. In this situation we need to be taking seriously the extensive research critiques of the policies we are adapting from overseas. Otherwise we are doomed to become just another variant of the educational nightmares to be found in the OECD countries we tend to borrow from.

If overseas visitors attending the ‘International Summit’ want to admire the New Zealand school system, they should be appreciating the long-standing strengths that are holding it together, rather than the impact of the Key Government’s policies.

Acknowledgements:

Installation by Martin Thrupp, Donn Ratana and Viv Aitken, Faculty of Education ,University of Waikato, March 2014. The ‘Ngā kura māuiui’ bed was obtained though a donation to a children’s charity. It was originally used in Tauranga Hospital. Yvonne sewed the ‘school jersey’ beautifully before Donn made it look more lived in. We thank Save our Schools NZ for hosting images and information about our installation.

The report is a farce, and John Morris should be ashamed of his part in it.What’s the point pretending it is an independent and rigorous consideration of the issue, when it is authored almost two years after Hekia made it clear the government fully intends to implement PP? It’s a foregone conclusion that they will try to force it through, much as they do with everything else.

Hekia chimed in this week to say all would be well because the application of PP would be “consistent and rigorous”. She is apparently oblivious to the fact that applying rules consistently is pointless if the rules themselves are based on a faulty premise.

So let’s get to the nitty gritty.

What’s the problem with PP? Why do teachers not want it?

A Barrier to Good Practice

PP is a barrier to teamwork as people become more self-interested and start to fight it out for the available pay rises. This is a disaster in schools, as it means teachers are less likely to share resources, share best practice, or ask for help.

Teachers worldwide have been warning that PP’s negative effects:

This is totally contrary to what is needed for great teaching and learning.

Carrot and Stick

Tying teachers’ wages to test results does not improve their performance. Research just out by the Institute of Fiscal Studies (UK), reveals that where salaries in similar school catchment areas differed by around £1,000 ($2k), “the higher-paid teachers did not perform any better than their less well-paid colleagues.” Source.

It’s no surprise. There is a mountain of evidence to show that PP motivates employees to focus only on doing what they need to do to gain the rewards – in other words they learn quickly to jump through the hoops. Worse than that is that the hoop-jumping takes place at the expense of those things that would help students, the school, and the education system as a whole.

So not only does PP fail to raise standards, it actually lowers standards.

Testing times

It cannot be stressed strongly enough the error of using National Standards, NCEA or any other test results in assessing the performance of teachers. Hekia Parata has repeatedly refused to rule out the use of National Standards data in judging who gets performance pay. Indeed the new PaCT Tool has been developed with that totally in mind, as all students’ “standards” will be tagged to a teacher.

For a start, you have the serious concerns around the reliability of test scores and grades. Last year a whole section of National Standards results was moved down by the Ministry, with no input from teachers or principals. How would that affect someone’s chances of getting their performance pay? What if the results were moved for unscrupulous reasons by those in power? It’s happened, trust me. Which leads me nicely into another concern.

PP leads to people at all levels of education, teachers included, massaging the figures, either consciously or unconsciously. Quality teaching and learning makes way for more hoop jumping, with teachers feeling pressured into coaching students not to become good learners but just to pass tests. There is evidence of lenient marking and plenty of cases of just plain forging results.

How any of that helps the students is quite beyond me.

Attracting and Retaining Great Teachers

Performance pay takes no account of factors outside the control of the teacher. If PP is related to test/exam results, it is likely to lead to many of the most experienced teachers avoiding the most challenging communities, schools and students, concerned that social factors affect students’ achievement, which in turn would lead to a decreased chance of the teacher meeting whatever benchmarks have been set for PP.

So, over time, some schools will have difficulty filling positions.

Wait – aren’t we meant to be giving more help to those in most need?

This is all so totally counter-productive.

Motivation

As most teachers know, as soon as you start offering extrinsic rewards to modify behaviour, you are seriously off track. Such measures crush intrinsic motivation, which is essential in all but the most mechanical of jobs. PP is also linked to decreased job satisfaction and lower self esteem.

This explains it brilliantly:

We already have a serious issue with job satisfaction in the education sector, top to bottom. What we don’t need is for staff to be even further beaten down – we need motivated, energetic teachers who are respected and trusted.

I want to understand why anyone would choose to start a charter school over any other kind of school, so I’ve been having conversations with people working for charters or with them or who are part of a community that want them. What has struck me is how often these people say they wanted to set up within the pre-charter school system and were repeatedly turned down, only to finally get the chance to have their school once charter schools were brought in.

My question is this: why would that be?

John Key’s rationale for charters is:

“There will be families that will make the decision that they want to send their child to them because it gives them what they believe will be an education that they can’t get in the current system.” Source

Hmmm. Another question: Why were they not allowed to join the system as it stood, prior to charter schools?

There are heaps of special character schools, kura, independent schools and so on. In fact, a new special character opened only this week in Christchurch and is said to have a “unique approach to learning [that] sets the school apart from other bilingual and immersion settings.” So, why would government push for the addition of a new style of school entirely?

I have a lot of sympathy for schools that became charters because they felt they had no other option. Schools such as Te Kura Hourua O Whangarei Terenga Paraoa, which Tracey Martin says:

“…was known for the fabulous work they did with students who were disconnected from mainstream schooling. It enjoyed a close working partnership with other local schools.”

“But the backers of charter schools seduced them and rushed them through the process to become a charter school.”

When I asked one commentator why she was advocating charterisation rather than another type of school, the answer she gave was telling:

So, this leads to more questions:

Why would a government want to “seduce” a school to become a charter rather than, say, a special character school?

Why did government not want them “in the current system.”

What possible difference could it make to the government, so long as the school is there and is doing its job well?

This is what we need to ponder.

Could it be that govenment purposefully created a barrier so that, if those schools wanted to be state funded, they would have to become charter schools?

Is this government so determined to embed charter schools in NZ that it would stoop to dubious tactics?

Are people being hoodwinked?

Have some of the current charters been used?

Because if prospective new schools are being shut out only to be told that if they want to operate in the public system they have to become charter schools, then the push to charterisation is not about innovation or choice or improvement or the students. It can’t be, as all of those things can and do happen in the non-charter school system – the system they have are not being helped to join. It’s not about those things at all.

Charter schools are being pushed through for one reason and one reason only: privatisation of yet another public system.

It’s about economics and ideology, pure and simple. And schools, communities and students are being duped.

]]>https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/02/23/charter-duped/feed/134The Bully Needs to Gohttps://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/01/25/the-bully-needs-to-go/
https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/01/25/the-bully-needs-to-go/#commentsFri, 24 Jan 2014 17:51:22 +0000http://thedailyblog.co.nz/?p=39883You are being bullied, and you can’t stop it. You feel you can’t get out.

Every day, you do what you can to keep things in order: Look after the kids. Teach them well. Make sure they aren’t hungry.

But at every turn the bully makes fun of you, insults you, judges you.

They don’t even know what you do all day, but they tell everyone you do it badly.

They rope their friends in to mock you in public: You’re stupid. No-one else would have you. You’re letting everyone down.

You continue to do your best. You know others that think way better of you than that. You hope the bully will notice, but they don’t. Willfully, perhaps.

Worse, it seems to rile them.

And the hounding continues.

You’re fed up of defending yourself.

You’re tired.

You start losing your confidence, second guessing yourself.

You wonder why you are there. Why do you bother?

You think about leaving, but what about the kids…

Just when you are at your lowest ebb, the bully brings you a gift. A big gift. They show the gift to everyone – strutting with pride.

Oh, people excaim, what a great thing to do. How kind. That’s real respect, right there, they say.

You wonder, why can’t they see? Why do they think so much undermining can be erased by a gift?

The gift’s not even what you’ve been asking for, to make things easier. To make the kids’ lives better. In fact, the gift seems to be more for the bully than for you.

You say that, but so many people call you ungrateful. Typical that you’re never satisfied, they say.

You feel insulted.

You feel belittled.

But you don’t stop speaking out.

And you stay. For the kids.

Because you’re a teacher. And this is your job. And you know you do it well.

And you will continue to speak out. Because it’s not you that needs to go. It’s the bully.

]]>https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/01/25/the-bully-needs-to-go/feed/12The real Charter School agenda: Private equity and the silencing of teachershttps://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/01/11/private-equity-and-the-silencing-of-teachers/
https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/01/11/private-equity-and-the-silencing-of-teachers/#commentsFri, 10 Jan 2014 19:49:22 +0000http://thedailyblog.co.nz/?p=39124Charter schools usually run for profit.

We give them our tax dollars and they spend them however they want.

They do not have to account for where the money goes.

So it doesn’t take Shelden Cooper to work out charter schools are so appealing to some. But just in case, let me make it plain:

You might have the impression that charter schools do better for kids, and that the money is well spent and the secrecy and profiteering is all worthwhile if it gets kids a better education.

Oh if only that were true.

Better results from charter schools?

The USA’s National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) found that students in charter schools performed several points worse than students in traditional public schools in both reading and maths on the National Assessment of Educational Progress test.

The 2009 Stanford University CREDO study found that a ”quarter of New Jersey charter schools have below-average growth and below-average achievement in maths, and the same is true for 35 percent of the charter schools in reading.”

CREDO 2009 also found that when charter school students and public school students from the same districts were compared, only 17% of students did better, 46% did about the same, and 37% of students were doing worse. Source.

By 2013, CREDO declared that charter results were about the same as public schools. The same. And all this despite much more funding and 20 years of operation.

So what’s the draw?

Well why not go to this conference and find out: “Private Equity Investing in For-Profit Education Companies – How Breakdowns in Traditional Models & Applications of New Technologies Are Driving Change”

The conference description is rather intriguing:

Private equity investing in for-profit education is soaring … for-profit education is one of the largest U.S. investment markets, currently topping $1.3 Trillion in value.

The advert goes on to say:

“What are some of the main challenges that Private Equity investors are facing in the education sector?”

Well, dear reader, do you still think it’s all about educating the poor kidlets?

Oh wait, there’s more…

Check out this agenda for the 2013 Education Summit in Arizona. (edinnovation.asu.edu) The panel, they crow, will include Ron Packard (of K12 Inc.) and other profiteers discussing:

A Class of Their Own: From Seed to Scale in a Decade: What Does it take for an Education Company to Reach $$$1Billion?

Remember, that’s tax dollars they are salivating over.

Yep, allllll about the students.

As Associate Professor Peter O’Connor said:

Charter schools are part of an international Right-wing attack on progressive and humanist traditions of education…

The attack is not driven by a genuine desire to remedy the ills of the education system, but by the desire to create a cheaper teaching force, one that is shackled by narrow-minded, test-based accountability measures, and one that has less union power to fight back.

And if you still think charter or partnership movement is about helping our neediest students, you really need to start clicking on some of those sources above.

]]>https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/01/11/private-equity-and-the-silencing-of-teachers/feed/17Teachers, support staff, whanau – thank youhttps://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/12/22/teachers-support-staff-whanau-thank-you/
https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/12/22/teachers-support-staff-whanau-thank-you/#commentsSat, 21 Dec 2013 18:16:22 +0000http://thedailyblog.co.nz/?p=38254It’s been a rocky year for education in Aotearoa. Not because our schools, kindergartens, and colleges are not doing well, but because they are under attack from the very people charged with protecting and enriching our education system.

And despite the constant nasty and demeaning remarks from those in power, our teachers have forged on, educating our children and caring in ways that simply cannot be measured.

So, to the teachers, students and parents out there who have fought for quality public education, thank you.

To every person who has attended a meeting, shared a blog post, written to their MP, signed a petition, marched, or otherwise raised their voice – thank you.

To those communities in Christchurch who have fought so bravely, often despite horrible post-quake problems, to save their local schools, thank you.

To every school staff member who turned up to work despite not being paid by Novopay, thank you.

To the brave teachers and trustees who have resisted National Standards, and all those who have done their best to mitigate the damage they can cause, thank you.

To those asking questions and demanding answers about charter schools system, thank you.

To all those who have demanded that teacher training is high quality and not reduced to a few weeks or to staff that are entirely untrained, thank you.

To everyone who has taken time to discuss with someone what this government’s policies are doing to our education system, thank you.

I want to thank everyone who has resisted the urge to throw in the towel in the face of adversity and instead has continued to do the best they can for our tamariki.

To everyone who has refused to just sit by: Thank you from the bottom of my heart.

Rest, enjoy the holidays, and be ready to continue to fight next year.

Ngā mihi o te Kirihimete me TeTau Hou.

]]>https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/12/22/teachers-support-staff-whanau-thank-you/feed/3Teachers, parents and students deserve a voice, toohttps://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/12/08/teachers-parents-and-students-deserve-a-voice-too/
https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/12/08/teachers-parents-and-students-deserve-a-voice-too/#commentsSat, 07 Dec 2013 17:20:14 +0000http://thedailyblog.co.nz/?p=37352It’s been a busy week in education. The media, unions, politicians, professors and pundits have all had their say on PISA, National Standards, and just about every other aspect of education.

And of course we had the obligatory crooning NZ Herald editorial praising Hekia Parata and following the party line on reforms. It even goes as far as saying Hekia is “keen to see high-quality teachers acknowledged and rewarded appropriately”.

Hmmm, tell that to the union members who spent months and months fighting like wild cats to get the Ministry to agree to progression for expert teachers who want to stay in the classroom.

The point is, everyone seems to get to have a very public say about education other than the teachers, the parents and the students. Where is their voice?

Well, I hear from them all the time since starting Save Our Schools NZ, and despite Hekia Parata and John Key saying they are right behind things such as National Standards, I can tell you very, very, very many are not.

And so today, I give over my post here over to two teachers who have, judging by the huge traffic to the SOSNZ blog this week, spoken for many.

This is their voice:

“We are two teachers who have been teaching for about 21 years each but we have never had to deal with anything as heart-breaking as reporting to parents about their child’s achievement in relation to National Standards. We feel we have been ‘bullied’ into implementing these standards, have not been consulted during any part of the process and labelled as uncaring and unprofessional when sharing our concerns.

Here is the reality of National Standards for us.

The first parent of a child in one of our classes who attended the three way interviews held at one of our schools recently was almost tearful when she asked, “Is my child special needs, because nothing that I know about him suggests that he is?” I then explained to her that the top part of our school report is the part that the government wants us to use to tell you about your child’s learning. I told her it’s about national standards and three words that are meant to tell you how your child getting on at school: “At the standard”, “below the standard” or “above the standard”.

I then said, let’s talk about the second part of the report, which tells you about what your child knows and can do, the great progress he has made and his next steps for learning. This part will also tell you about his confidence, his assertiveness and his huge enthusiasm for learning. It will tell you about how he relates to others, how he manages himself, the ways he thinks to help him learn and the ways he participates and contributes at school. Then her child spoke confidently and proudly to her about the learning stories in his portfolio. This parent was relieved, informed and proud of the huge progress her son had made towards achieving his goals. She said to me “You’ve just talked about my son.”

This continued, as I had to explain to the parents of kind, thoughtful, creative risk taking students that their child was below the expected level for their age according to the National Standards. I had to say to the parents of children who share their learning with others, challenge each other and themselves, set their own goals and work hard to achieve them, that their child was below the standard, but that was what the government wanted me to tell them.

For all of the children we have taught over the twenty five years who have left secondary school and gone on to be successful employers and employees, the way they experienced their schooling did not include anything remotely like national standards. The experience for them was a combination of seeing the relevance of their learning for them by teachers making this explicit, their teachers having high expectation around what they would achieve based on them as an individual, and developing a relationship with their teachers based on the teacher having a genuine desire for each student to reach their potential.

We have since discovered that this is the findings of some research undertaken by Russell Bishop and others as part of the Kotahitanga project which reveals important information regarding factors that improve the achievement of Maori students, in particular, but all students as well.

So to the parents who are being told those three words in whatever form, please do not accept that they tell you anything you need or want to know about your child as a learner and let the government know that.

Even if you are hearing the words ‘At the standard or above the standard’ what does this tell you about your child as a learner? We think that it tells you nothing as we don’t believe that the standards are an accurate measure of achievement. For example, one of our 11year old daughters who reads at a 12-13 year level with good comprehension skills is reading “at the standard” for her age. We already use a wide range of assessment tools effectively to be able to set goals for individual students and to measure progress. We believe that this is just one of the features that makes our education system recognised worldwide.

In our experience no student is ever motivated by the knowledge that they at failing i.e. below the standard. In fact it usually has the opposite effect. We have grave concerns that the stigma attached to being labelled a failure for a large number of learners will not only affect individuals but will have far reaching consequences. We fear that we are teaching a generation of children who will carry the label ‘failure’ into adulthood.

In attempting address a perceived ‘tail’ of underachievement this government has created a monster.”

That, Mr Key – That, Ms Parata – THAT is the voice of teachers and parents throughout the land.

You should try engaging with them instead of battling with them. You should also talk to parents, honestly, and with students. You might learn a thing or two.

I am reminded of this each time Hekia Parata and co. assure us that charter schools are about our tamariki, about bolstering their achievement, raising their grades, helping them do better.

Because, for all I have asked those driving the charter school movement to show me how these schools will improve things and why we cannot instead focus upon further improving all public schools, I am yet to get anything even remotely near a decent answer.

In fact most people refuse to answer me at all, which is telling.

Associate Minister of Education Nikki Kaye and I had a spirited exchange on Twitter earlier in the year, where she assured me publicly she had hard facts. She promised to come back to me with those facts. Instead she fobbed me off each time I reminded her and then unfollowed me.

It’s now been six months, and to date she’s given me this: No facts. No figures. Nothing.

So I am no nearer believing charter schools will be an educational miracle. Sadly, I almost wish I was.

Because all I care about is that we give as good an education as possible to as many children as we can, in a fair way, with as much equity as can be managed. If I thought this was going to work, I’d be all over it. If I even believed it was truly aimed at improving the system, I might give it a tentative nod. But the evidence is that charter schools’ real benefit is to one group and one group only – those running them. It’s not about students, it’s about profits.

Hekia Parata saying good things about teachers? It must be approaching an election year.

Forgive my cynicism, but after years of being told by Ms Parata that teachers are failing, need reforming, need watching and monitoring more, to suddenly have her tell us that “Celebrating excellence in education is an important part of the Government’s commitment,” is a bit rich.

Ms Parata, you say you are committed as a government to “… raising the status of the teaching profession, and publicly acknowledging the critical contribution the profession makes to lifting overall student achievement…” So show me what in the past two (five, however many) years you have done to demonstrate that.

“There is so much excellent teaching and learning going on in New Zealand, and the festivals will be an opportunity to showcase this,” you say.

Well, I am racking my brain to remember all this glowingly positive stuff you and the government has said about us, but forgive me if I am struggling.

As another observer noted: “What, we are suddenly fabulous…we the failing, need performance pay to make us work, nasty, mean unionised teachers who don’t even need to be trained or qualified??” Indeed.

We are starkly aware of you being held accountable for acting unlawfully when trying to close Salisbury school for special needs girls.

Hmm, what else … didn’t you make a right royal cock-up when you tried to get rid of loads of technology teachers (thereby grossly increasing class sizes) and have to back down?

We remember your myriad press releases telling us 20% of children fail at our hands, while you refuse to acknowledge that the huge majority of those leaving without NCEA2 in maths and English are actually our poorest children and that there just might be a link there.

But we sure are having trouble recalling all that celebrating of us you reckon you’ve done.

Oh wait… reading on, the clouds clear and it all starts to make a little more sense: Parata said “Hosting the international summit, holding the festivals, introducing the excellence awards, and establishing the new professional body EDUCANZ, are all part of acknowledging the profession, raising its status, and recognising the critical contribution that quality education achievement makes to the future prosperity of New Zealand.

Oh, so you undermined us for years but now want us to perform like trained monkeys because you have an international summit coming up? Ooookay.

And you slip in there that EDUCANZ, the replacement for the Teachers Council. is part of this celebration. Funny that, because all the teachers I have spoken to are appalled that the new body is to be run by people appointed by you and you alone, with not one representative on there that we have chose to speak for us. Despite us having to pay for it. Yeah that move sure told us you trust us and treat us with respect..

Look, let’s get real. There is no point you coming out, after all you have done, to make one speech where you insist you celebrate teachers.

Talk is cheap. You need to walk that walk.

]]>https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/11/11/try-walking-the-walk-hekia/feed/6To improve student achievement, we must face the real problemshttps://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/10/27/to-improve-student-achievement-we-must-face-the-real-problems/
https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/10/27/to-improve-student-achievement-we-must-face-the-real-problems/#commentsSat, 26 Oct 2013 20:55:48 +0000http://thedailyblog.co.nz/?p=35023This government is fond of telling us that 20 percent of New Zealand’s school children leave school as failures. It’s quoted so often that it’s taken on a life of its own as a truth, a reality, something not to be challenged. And that widespread belief is then used to promote all manner of initiatives, whether it’s National Standards, charter schools, or forcing parents on benefits to send their kids to kindy.

But is it as clear cut as Hekia Parata and co would have us believe? Pfffft, of course not.

A major concern is the issue of ethnicity, which is so often singled out by politicians, who talk as if it is the school system and that system alone that is failing our Maori and Pasifika children.

The overlapping issues of ethnicity, gender and socio-economic status are pushed away, ignored, buried deep below a mass of spin-doctoring and handy catchphrases in the hope that people don’t ask too much. Or think too much. Or think at all….

But think we must.

The government’s practice of separating out a single factor such as ethnicity and comparing one sub-group to other whole populations is misleading and ignores the many factors contributing to underachievement.

The closest to the politically popular “1 in 5” the researchers were able to find was that 14.3% of students failed to achieve proficiency level 2 on PISA reading – and a closer examination of this group showed that 74% were male and that socio-economic factors such as parental income and the number of books in the home were clearly contributing issues.

Just think about that: The more books you have in your in your home, the better you are likely to do in your exams. Got a computer? Better chance of success. Who do you think has fewest books in their homes? Least chance of a computer? And why?

It’s not rocket science, is it?

But surely the school a student attends makes all the difference? That’s what we’re always told, isn’t it? Send the poor child to a private school on a scholarship or to a charter school and they’ll fly.

Hogwash.

Private schools perform at about the same level as public schools once socio- economic factors are controlled for. Ditto public/private partnership schools. In other words, rather than being about the child, teacher or school, a student’s chance of success is largely determined by money or the lack of it.

One report suggests that the Expert Panel on Child Poverty be studied alongside overseas research of our achievement “because educational under-achievement is closely related to social and economic factors, in New Zealand”. But given the government will not accept poverty is an issue and the gap between rich and poor has increased hugely in recent years, I think the likelihood of that happening is slim at best. Not when it can be used to justify the creeping privatisation of our public schools through the charter school system, or the devaluing of teachers, or the implementation of National Standards.

Nah, it’s way too handy to just keep trotting out the mantra.

Angela Roberts, President of the Post Primary Teachers Association (PPTA). has high hopes for the impact of the research, saying:

“We hope that politicians and editorial writers will stop throwing around figures like ‘1 in 5’ and ‘national disgrace’ when in reality the issues are much more complicated.”

I applaud your hopefulness, Angela, but don’t hold your breath.

The truth is, politicians and the media already know they are massaging the figures. It’s no accident. It’s purposeful and serves their purpose wonderfully.

Because if they do their unseemly job well, they can keep people from realising that despite serious issues around race and poverty, our schools and our children are achieving far more than they are being given credit for.

]]>https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/10/27/to-improve-student-achievement-we-must-face-the-real-problems/feed/2MORE money for Charter Schools???https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/09/29/more-money-for-charter-schools/
https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/09/29/more-money-for-charter-schools/#commentsSat, 28 Sep 2013 18:49:10 +0000http://thedailyblog.co.nz/?p=33022I’m travelling at the moment. Overseas, visiting the homeland and showing off the Banshee to the rellies. Things revolve around long lunches with lost aunties and trips to stately homes with various olds in wheelchairs. My only access to news is via the odd glimpse of BBC1 and intermittent access to the internet on my Samsung mini. As a consequence, I find myself strangely cut off, missing all but the most outrageous of Hekia’s doings.

Still, some things are sufficiently jaw-dropping that they reach me even with this almost post-apocolyptic lack of information.

I was having a nice trek around the National Forest (in my new walking shoes,purple and sturdy) when my phone suddenly found a stray radiowave and started vibrating violently. “Something’s up,” I thought, and sat down for a sausage roll and a nosy.

“More money needed for first charter schools!” said my little screen. Surely not, I thought. They’ve not even started up yet – how on earth could they be into overspend already? And with so few pupils?! How could nineteen million dollars not be enough?

The mind boggles.

Sadly, or perhaps to preserve my sanity a little while longer, the radiowaves deserted me and I was unable to find out any more, so I rounded up the banshee and resumed the stroll.

But my mind was running a million miles an hour…

How many kids would $19 million (and counting) have fed school lunches to? How many special needs students could have been granted assistance with that money? What about all the kids whose teachers could have gotten specialist training to help boost numeracy and literacy in target groups?

Hekia is fond of saying charter schools will raise student achievement at NZEA level 2. I’m yet to see how. Because, despite the small phone and shonky internet coverage here in my forest, all I see is more neo-Liberal shuffling of money from the public purse into private hands.

]]>https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/09/29/more-money-for-charter-schools/feed/3Education: do we want ingenuity and freedom, or standardisation and controlhttps://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/07/28/education-do-we-want-ingenuity-and-freedom-or-standardisation-and-control/
https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/07/28/education-do-we-want-ingenuity-and-freedom-or-standardisation-and-control/#commentsSat, 27 Jul 2013 18:59:28 +0000http://thedailyblog.co.nz/?p=24367
I have been left confused by a recent article by Andreas Schleicher.

In it he begins by singing the praises of “New Zealand’s liberal and entrepreneurial school system.” He speaks very highly of the benefits of school autonomy, reflecting that “It would be hard to imagine [principals doing the same] in one of Southern Europe’s bureaucratic school systems” and ends with triumphant praise of the Kiwi schools that “have moved on from delivered wisdom, to user-generated wisdom, from a culture of standardization, conformity and compliance towards being innovative and ingenious”

Wow, I thought. He gets it.

He understands that autonomy beats beaurocracy, that creativity beats standardisation, and that Kiwi schools are doing a good job.

Then I remembered, this is the same man who, in a visit to NZ recently, sang the praises of National Standards, and alarm bells started tinkling far away in the back of my mind, but I read on…

Principals’ concerns

Schleicher says there were Kiwi principals complaining to him that they have difficulties attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers, yet he doesn’t address this at all. Surely that’s a hugely important issue if we are to improve our system further?

Just ponder what school leavers and graduates might be thinking if they consider teaching as a career: Why join a profession that is being battered world wide? Why take a job that is used as a political football? Why pay for training when some are being paid to jump into the classroom with little or no training?

Because, really, if teachers can now go into schools after just 6 weeks’ training over the summer holidays while schools are shut or, in the case of charter schools, go into the classroom with no training at all, surely that will put a fair few off paying fees and taking years to get a teaching degree?

Are we slowly but surely giving up on the idea of trained teachers? And if so, how does that help raise the bar? Just how does it help principals’ concerns over attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers? Maybe that’s why he glossed over the issue – it’s easier for him to ignore it than address it?

But I would love to know what the principals think.

There is no discussion, either, of why teachers are leaving the profession in droves. Maybe it’s easier to gloss over serious issues like that? But you would think, wouldn’t you, that it might be worth a few lines?

No, because all Schleicher is really interested in, is promoting National Standards.

National Standards – a coherent system ?

Despite our own Prime Minister admitting National Standards data is a crock, and despite parents, teachers, professors, psychologists and lord ony knows who else saying the same, Schleicher applauds New Zealand for bringing in a “coherent system of educational standards”.

This also despite the latest results having to be tinkered with and moved down by the Ministry because they were so very incorrect (after being garnered in the first place using Ministry approved assessment tools).

Schleicher must have got a top notch sales pitch when he met with Hekia Parata, if he still thinks National Standards are coherent after that.

But he is sold, that much is clear. He says National Standards now allow teachers to “monitor how individual students progress”. What the hell? Is he seriously implying that teachers only monitor progress because of NS? Truly that is the most ridiculous remark. Teachers monitor, record and test all the time in all key areas, so that they know where students are at and where they need to go next. They always have. All that NS has added is another layer of faffing and inputting, taking time away from that which teachers would spend planning, marking and teaching.

Schleicher’s views become all too clear when he decides to throw in a jab at the teachers’ unions, saying that they “contest the implementation of standards and any notion of public transparency vigorously”.

Let’s be very honest here. National Standards do not add transparency. What is being opposed is a tool that is being put in place under false pretences, not for students but to allow performance pay and bulk funding. The plan is clear from the Ministry’s own documents. I have the paperwork here on my desk. Maybe Mr Schleicher would like a copy?

Do we want ingenuity and freedom, or standardisation and control?

I would say, Mr Schleicher, that you might be better served in judging New Zealand schools if you listened to principals’ and parents’ concerns and addressed those honestly rather than ignoring them and producing a party political broadcast for the National Party’s education reforms.

Because those reforms have little to nothing to do with innovation and ingenuity and everything to do with standardisation and control, in fact they are totally contrary to the very things you profess to love.

You are right when you say that New Zealand’s liberal and entrepreneurial school system gives teachers and principals the space to make great things happen. Sadly, if you and Hekia and those like you have your way that won’t be the case for very much longer.

“Oh you teachers, you just want everything to stay the same – what’s wrong with choice? Bloody teachers. Typical that they don’t want testing – trying to hide that they’re all useless. What about our poor kids? Gnash gnash.”

That’s what I hear, in various forms, over and over again in education debates, and it’s an ill-informed, simplistic and sometimes downright rude accusation.

Let’s look at some of the claims.

“Teachers hate change.”

Let’s just think about that. Our students change all year round, and change with a BAM! at the start of each new school year. The curriculum was changed not so long ago. The Numeracy Project was brought in. Things change in education all the time – it goes with the job and teachers are used to that.

And there are lots more things teachers would love to change. Off the top of my head:

What about employing more admin staff and assistants so that teachers can spend more time on the educational stuff and less time printing, putting displays up, putting readers back and getting the next lot, and so on.

Have more teacher aides, and a system for them to get qualifications and training, so that special needs children have more support.

They would love to change that fact that so many children come to school hungry.

They would love to have more art, music, Te Reo and sport specialists in school teaching kids or training teachers to better teach kids.

They would love to change the fact that they are losing their libraries and librarians.

Nope, not even close. Testing can be tremendously useful. National Standards, however, are not so hot.

Don’t confuse the two.

National Standards data collection is an administrative exercise using tests that teachers already do. It adds a layer of work that is unecessary for teachers and a labelling of students that can be downright harmful. Is it for parents? Not likely, since it is out of date before parents see it. Its only use is political.

What would be of more benefit than National Standards?

More professional development on testing methods to improve teachers’ testing skills, analysing and post-test-planning. And more time and resources so that all of that can be done often and in a timely fashion. Timely feedback is of huge importance.

They don’t want to prevent testing – they simply want the testing they do to be effective rather than political.

“Teachers don’t want to improve.”

Don’t be silly, of course they do. They actually like learning. It’s kind of essential in the job. Not to mention, a teacher’s job is easier, more enjoyable and more satisfying the more they learn.

Different teachers need different levels of professional development. Like any other profession, in fact. So, rather than beating up on an entire profession, would it not be better to improve access to better quality training rather than the often average or useless stuff now on offer, fund more Masters courses, allow for more mentoring and so on?

Instead of the almost daily bashing, why not do something productive to bring about more positive change?

“Teachers don’t want choice.”

Actually, no. Teachers know there is room for choice and that it’s a good thing. They know that no one system fits all. Which is why, in New Zealand, we already have Special Character schools, home schooling, private schools, bilingual schools, correspondence school, Te kura kaupapa Maori, State integrated schools, special schools, Health Units, and teen parent units, single sex schools, day schools, and boarding schools.

No, it’s not choice teachers fear – it’s poor choices.

For example, overall, after 20 years, US charter schools are now just about on a par with public schools. So money has been diverted, schools pitted against each other, many public schools closed, and for what? To take two decades for charters to improve enough to now match public schools? Was all that disruption really worth it jusy to reach the status quo.

Forgive me if I don’t see that as an excellent plan.

“Teachers don’t want anyone in schools unless they have a teaching qualification.”

Yes they do. They already have them!

The system is already in place to allow for teachers without formal teaching qualification to work in our schools under the Limited Authority to Teach (LAT) where the applicant shows they have expertise in the area in which they will teach. I know first-hand one rather fabulous art teacher working under this very scheme, and there are many others.

In addition to LAT, schools up and down the country have speakers in, experts taking workshops, and so on. In just a couple of weeks’ relief teaching in one school I saw an awesome presentation about protecting our sea life and a published cartoonist who ran rippingly inspiring art workshops for every child in the school. And the Dream Team has been welcomed by schools throughout New Zealand just this month.

Embracing experts is one of the things schools do brilliantly. But that is not the same as allowing some schools to have classroom teachers with no experience, no qualifications, and no provent expertise.

A change for the better

Isn’t it time to stop making sweeping judgements about a whole profession?

Improvement is the goal. And the only way to get that is for all of us to share ideas and listen to each other.

Read up, ask questions, look into what is already available in NZ, find out what is working (or not) here and elsewhere, talk to kids, talk to teachers, question politicians, then mull it all over and help identify changes that really will help make positive change.

]]>https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/07/14/those-bloody-teachers/feed/8National Standards: Vapours, Hot Air and Coercionhttps://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/06/30/national-standards-vapours-hot-air-and-coercion/
https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/06/30/national-standards-vapours-hot-air-and-coercion/#commentsSat, 29 Jun 2013 18:29:48 +0000http://thedailyblog.co.nz/?p=20313John Key is adamant that there isn’t much resistance to National Standards any more, saying that last year “there were about 300 non-complying schools, this year it’s only 13.” He trumpets that “resistance to National Standards is evaporating.”

As one observer noted “How can there be [resistance]? The govt has the ability to overide schools with the strong arm of the law – schools at the end of the day have no choice.”

Because what Mr Key doesn’t tell you in his sound-bite is that schools have all along been, at best, coerced to comply, and at worst, threatened with reprisals by the Ministry of Education if they do not comply with National Standards.

That is why many have had to back down.

Not approval or acceptance, but bullying and fear.

Do As I Say, Or Else

Pembroke School has been on the receiving end of the Ministry’s dubious and underhand methods.

Remember when Tomorrow’s Schools were brought in and David Lange promised “more parental and community involvement” to meet local conditions? Well the locally elected community school board at Pembroke decided to opt out of National Standards. They considered the issues, and with a large proportion of students who have English as a second language, they felt the standards would be harmful for their students and community.

The Ministry disagreed. Instead it insisted Pembroke’s board have a “compliant charter” including National Standards, complaining that the “board has shown a lack of willingness to meet the requirements of National Standards”.

In other words, the school was forbidden to resist. Forbidden to have a choice. Forbidden to opt out.

And what did the Ministry do to Pembroke, to prove its point? After months of planning a multi-school fono that was to be hosted at there – a fono that was to look at Pasifika eduction, including national standards – the Ministry pulled the event from Pembroke’s site, telling the board that it “could no longer work with Pembroke School because [they] weren’t following the rules”. As Principal, Brent Godfrey says “not working with our school in the interest of our Pacific students – one of the identified areas of concern – is pathetic.”

Does it sound to you that Pembroke’s resistance evaporated? No, me neither. It’s bulling, plain and simple.

And that, Mr Key, that is nothing to trumpet about.

Big Brother Ministry

Is Pembroke the only school in this kind of situation? Is it hell.

Go and ask Balmoral School, in Auckland.

Or Freeville School.

Or try Waikanae School where 66% of respondents to their survey said that when it came to action against National Standards, low level action was supported by 78%, and high level action with high level consequences was supported by 13%.

Many of the comments in response to the survey said they would have chosen a stronger level of action but feared the board and/or principal would suffer the consequences.

Waikanae’s board says it is “concerned about the requirement to send school level OTJ [overall teacher judgement] data to the Ministry of Education” and so chose to report against National Standards but in a format that was not easily turned into league tables. (It will be interesting to see how Waikanae School and others will deal with the brewing PaCT saga, but that’s for another time.)

So you got the Education Amendment Bill passed and Kiwi charter schools are now all go go go. Nice work.

It was a good move to get your pal Catherine Isaac to chair the panel so it could ignore all advice and submissions and push the legislation through. Clever.

And a big high five for getting The Maori Party to fall for it. Hahahaha, I did have a good titter at that one.

So funny that they forgot that you said quite proudly on TV that “If we continue the bankrupt response of just paying young Polynesian, young Maori men in South Auckland the dole to sit in front of TV, smoke marijuana, watch pornography and plan more drug offending and more burglaries, then we’re going to have them coming through our windows regardless of whether we live in Epsom or anywhere else in greater Auckland.“

Pfffst, it’s not your fault if they don’t remember stuff like that. Losers.

Anyway, I’m fairly sure that every Maori or Polynesian man in South Auckland is stoked to hear you are so keen to save them, so let’s get cracking and set up this school.

The John Banks School for Errant Maori and Polynesian South Auckland Lads (Ltd)

Now I know what you’re thinking, John. You’re worrying that you don’t have any background in education. But it’s okay – you don’t have to be trained in education to run or work in charter schools. You don’t need to have even taught. No, nothing at all. You just have to convince the panel to say yes to your plan, and seeing as we’ve got Catherine and Hekia on our side and Ministry staff fearing who is next for the chop, I’d say we’re pretty much in!

Lucky that.

Johnny (can I call you Johnny?) can you believe that we make up our own curriculum, our own school day and term times, and not have to prove any of it works or is for a good reason. We can pretty much do whatever we like. And for the teachers we just have to hire some warm bodies to teach lessons they’ve printed off the internet – they’ll be way cheaper than those folk who wasted years training for the job and do their own lesson planning. We’ll save a fortune and make a killing!

By the way, what’s ‘differentiation’? I heard that mentioned by some militant teacher type on TV last week. If you get a second, Google it, would you?

It doesn’t matter really though, because so long as we put out good press releases and cool glossy brochures everyone will think we are fabulous. The South Auckland lads will never notice – far too drugged up. No it’s true, I heard a prominent politician say so on TV.

Aww Thanks Di, it’s a lovely idea – but is there any money in it?

Oh yes, John, there really is!

We get a nice handout from the government of hundreds of thousands of dollars to set up the premises – and we don’t have to return a red cent of it if we close the school. Stop laughing, I’m serious. Really.

I think we should maybe choose one of those well kitted out schools in Christchurch that are about to become available. I’ve heard one of them has a $1 million plus upgrade just 2 years ago, and I bet we can get it mega cheap.

What else? Well the students will be funded as decile 3, and the funding for things like special needs and ICT won’t have to be spent on those actual things so we can do with that whatever we like! We don’t need to bother with those pesky tricky things Dyslexia or Autism or speaking Te Reo or Samoan or anything. Yeah, nah, just filter out anyone like that (like lots of the US charters do) and we can keep the cheaper kids. The public system can get the more difficult ones back – that’ll be a hoot. Our results will look better and the state school’s will look worse. Take that trained teachers. Hahaha, such fun!

Oh lord, I just thought, what if we get hungry kids? Can you get your staff to whip up some eggs bene for them to share? No? Oh man, well best get that Weetbix lined up, then. But still send the eggs – we claim that on expenses. I doubt we would we have to declare it, eh?

Money money money … it’s a rich man’s world

I’ve had another great idea:

Maybe we could call this principal in the UK who used school money to hire her mates, claimed expenses multiple times from different organisations, gave contracts to businesses she was close to, and used funds to pay for private taxis costing well over $6000. She’d be able to give us tips for making the most of those tax dollars!

It’s okay, we can do all that and everyone will still think we are fabulous. I mean to say, that teacher was named Head Teacher of the Year at the 2007 Teaching Awards and appointed CBE, so all good. I’ll get our people to talk to her people.

If she’s unavailable, we could call the guys who conned US$17 million from Oregon. They were super clever – they pretended their chain of charter schools schools was not for-profit (aww bless their faux charitable socks) and then “submitted false, incomplete and misleading records about how many students were enrolled in the schools and how they were spending the state’s money.”

You’ve got to laugh.

What if we’re rumbled?

No, don’t worry about that. When charter school fraudsters are investigated they don’t hang about. Once the cash cow is rumbled we could just close the school like these guys. Overheads would be gone immediately and we can skedaddle with the school EFTPOS card. It’d leave students with nowhere to go, but hey ho.

Man alive! Google threw me 2.8 million hits for “charter school fraud” so we’d have to be careful in case anyone is onto this scam.

Look at these idiots…

The FBI report that Dorothy June Brown and four other school executives were “charged with defrauding three charter schools of more than $6.5 million between 2007 and April 2011.”

If we were investigated, do you think you could get one of the boys to nudge the right fella, tip the wink, whip out the handshake and so on, so the police don’t investigate? Chur.

Anyway no, no, don’t think about that. Easy solution… if the crap hits the fan and anyone tries to get the facts out we can just say it’s all daft leftie mudslinging and get one of our blogger mates to bash them on their blog. By all accounts, they wouldn’t charge us too much for that.

So what do you think, Banksy? Shall we do it? You and me?

The John Banks School for Errant Maori and Polynesian South Auckland Lads (Ltd)?

Listen as she describes teaching under the changes brought in by educational reforms; Teaching to the test, scripted lessons and planning (done by administrators and handed down), lack of time for creativity, teachers being evaluated by students and sacked if just one for says “needs improvement”.

This is not good staff management. It is not good for teaching. And it is not good for student learning.

This is the McCarthy Trials, or for those literary readers, The Crucible.

People thrown into the fire and under the bus, with no recourse and no protection even from the most spurious of claims.

Imagine that in your job – you are sacked unfairly and you cannot put your side of things. You cannot speak to the management or the board in your defence. You cannot go to an employment council or a lawyer. You are sacked unfairly from your job and there is nothing at all you can do.

Nothing.

Imagine that happening to you at work tomorrow. Imagine how that affects your life.

These are teachers. Teachers!

When did they become the focus for such hateful treatment?

When did educators become the enemy of the state?

These are people who decided to dedicate their professional lives to educating children.

We should all be asking what any government’s motives really are when they behave this way towards educators.

This will be New Zealand teaching very soon, as the very same reforms are being brought in, bit by bit, here too.

Let’s look at the slippery slope’s main players.

First we see National Standards.

These are just the start down the slope towards standardised tests and then standardised lessons. No room for capturing a child’s interest or using a teacher’s expertise or passion – just teach to the script and administer that test. And so much money diverted away from the classroom and authentic learning experience to pay for those tests. So very much money wasted.

You want innovators? You want people to think outside the box? Tough. They will be taught to think inside the box – or the test bubble, at least.

Because all that matters is the result on the test. Isn’t it?

Then there is a push for Performance Pay.

From my conversations with people outside of education, many think it sounds great for educators to be paid this way. The best are rewarded, the worst are penalised. But teachers know it is not nearly that straight forward. Even a PISA study into performance pay acknowledges that there is “no relationship between average student performance in a country and the use of performance-based pay schemes“.

And yet performance pay for teachers is widespread in American schools and it being imposed in England, now, too, despite much resistance from headteachers, teachers, and parents.

Worse still, performance pay is the beginning of the end of true collegial teaching, where teachers share knowledge and resources and support each other. Even those teachers who feel sure they would get the reward, be given the higher pay, do not want this.

That speaks volumes. Because we do not want to be pitted against each other, we want to work together for the kids.

The PISA report puts it best when it concludes that “countries that have succeeded in making teaching an attractive profession have often done so not just through pay, but by raising thestatus of teaching, offering real career prospects, and giving teachers responsibility as professionals and leaders of reform.“

Which leads nicely into charter schools.

Anyone who is well enough informed about these knows that the end result of charters is often that the public schools nearby are run into the ground while the charter thrives. But how does that happen?

Got dyslexia or Asperger’s or any other special need that might affect your scores? Dumped.

Not good at tests? Dumped.

Then the public system has to take those dumped kids, along with their difficulties and their distress, and help as best they can, often right before testing.

And guess which school has to register the lower scores from those dumped, distressed, defeated students? Not the school that was meant to be teaching them right up until that test. Lawdy no,

The school that has those test results against their record is the one they were at for test time, even if they were there just one day or a week. So the public school system that didn’t even get chance to teach and help those students, didn’t receive the funds all year for them, but does have take responsibility for the low test results.

And the end result? The charters’ scores go up, the public schools’ scores go down.

It’s an excellent exercise in marketing. The kind of thing we expect from someone trying to sell us the latest games console or who is trying to get us to vote for them.

It’s all spin, marketing, smoke and mirrors.

It sure as hell isn’t about educating those children.

True teachers teach all children.

The clever, the tricky, the stubborn, the compliant, the enthusiastic, the tired, the supported, the defeated, the lost, the dreamy, and the ones that aren’t good at tests. And they do that because they know that what matters most is helping all of the students as much as possible.

But they can only do that if they are safe from the kind of divisive and bizarre reforms that saw Ellie Rubenstein and many like her lost to the system.

So don’t for one minute think these small incremental changes happening in New Zealand education are benign or ‘not so bad’.

They are the start of a very, very slippery slope, and at the bottom of that slope are a heap of tired and battered bodies.

Will your child be one of them?

]]>https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/05/26/its-a-slippery-slope-and-nzs-arse-has-got-wheels-on/feed/8Shonky Data and Shabby Journalism – Must Be National Standards Time Againhttps://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/05/13/shonky-data-and-shabby-journalism-must-be-national-standards-time-again/
https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/05/13/shonky-data-and-shabby-journalism-must-be-national-standards-time-again/#commentsSun, 12 May 2013 18:30:45 +0000http://thedailyblog.co.nz/?p=12275“There is a unanimous expert opinion

– even among those championing the potential of the National Standards –

that it would be very foolish indeed to make judgments about any school

Soon we will be treated to another battery of shonky data from The Ministry of Education.

Bruce Slane cartoon: Food 4 Thought.

John Key trumpets that “National Standards in education are a critical part of the National-led plan for securing a brighter future for New Zealand children”. Just how, Mr Key? Tell us how crappy data, poorly reported, helps us towards a brighter future. Because it doesn’t give us a whole lot of faith when some assessment tools are widely reported to give inflated results and one this week announced that “new mapping has been applied to existing test results… you will notice that the curriculum levels have moved down – usually by one or two curriculum sub-levels. ” What?

So let me get this right… Teachers are spending hours and hours assessing kids’ work using tools approved by the Ministry. The Ministry then decides the tools are not accurate or reliable. The end grades are then moved up and down by the Ministry (seemingly more often than whore’s drawers, and possibly with less shame). And then the results are published as if they mean something useful…

Give me a break.

None of this, of course, will stop the mainstream media and some unscrupulous bloggers jumping at the chance to write inflammatory and sensationalist pieces based on these data points. Never mind who it worries or panics, and never mind how accurate or responsible the reporting is. Never mind that the writer has little to no understanding of the processes behind the collection of the data or how unreliable it is.

Who cares?! Great headline = more papers sold = success. Right?

Isn’t everything okay so long as someone makes some money out of it somehow?

The Herald have already set a nice low standard with this shabby journalism last year, that chose to focus on the lowest of the three collected figures (figures that I reiterate are not even reliable) and make totally unstartling non-revelations such as that the English language changes and moves over time and that this affects how people write. Oh well, thanks for that useful insight. Give that outstanding journalist a charter school to run!

And is it really news that our poorest students or Pasifika and Maori students or students with English as a second language are playing catch-up? Teachers know this. Parents know this. As Edendale School principal David McKenzie said: “Numbers conceal human beings with all the events that shape and make up their lives.”

It’s what we are doing about those most in need – or NOT doing – that’s the real issue. Does anything about National Standards help the eduction system find answers? Not on your life. Meanwhile, great programmes such as Te Kotahitanga that has proven results in closing the gap for Maori and Pasifika students, have been given the chop. Funding for special needs kids is pitiful. A quarter of our kids live in poverty. Tell me again how this makes sense?

National Standards data will slither along making its own mark as it is used to wrongly judge schools, teachers and even the students themselves thanks to poor understanding and even poorer reporting.

Parents, this is my message to you. Be very wary of judging schools on this data. Because let’s face it – you can ‘weigh the pig’ as often as you like, you can record the results in any way you want, and you can write all the news articles in the world – if the weighing scales were faulty in the first place, what does that tell anyone?

]]>https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/05/13/shonky-data-and-shabby-journalism-must-be-national-standards-time-again/feed/9About Dianne Khanhttps://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/05/01/about-dianne-khan/
Tue, 30 Apr 2013 21:02:05 +0000http://thedailyblog.co.nz/?p=10481Dianne Khan has worked with children for over 20 years and has been a teacher for 13 years both in Aotearoa and England.

Dianne was trucking along nicely, sewing, baking and being a stay at home mum, when the 2012 budget took place.